If the idea that minds can emerge from mindless stuff is incoherent, this problem goes away. As does simulation theory. — RogueAI

I don't see how we will be able to prove what gives rise to consciousness.

You're not suggesting substance-dualism are you?

If the universe is eternal, then it follows that every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. — Wayfarer

This is the basis for my suggestion that Boltzmann brains and human-life are equally likely to occur. Despite the latter's pattern being more complex.

Other posters have cast doubt on this suggestion. It would be appreciated if @jgill put us straight.

This seems self-refuting: if we were disembodied brains with false memories there would seem to be no rational justification for believing that we could be such, since the hypothesis that we are more likely to be Boltzmann brains relies on accepted mathematical and physical understandings which are reliant on the assumption that our memories are accurate (enough). — Janus

Yes, I think this is the point raised by Sean Carroll. And it is the same kind of paradox that faces epistemological nihilism - if we can't know things, we can't know that we can't know things.

We can only be completely agnostic on the question of if we are a Boltzmann Brain?

Yes, the part about all outcomes being equally likely within infinity, is my challenge to the paradox.

It would be good to have your thoughts. I have been impressed with many of the regulars knowledge on infinities.

Countable infinities are equal, so the infinite set of worlds where we're Boltzmann brains is equal to the infinite set of worlds where we're not. It's a 50/50 chance, epistemically speaking. Given an infinitely large multiverse, of course. — RogueAI

That's what I was thinking! Thoughts @noAxioms?

Professor Chomsky, as a millennial I have increasingly lost hope in politics. The Conservative Party here in Britain win election after election, and we have seen the prolonged character assassination of a kind and honest opposition leader, leading to him losing the last two elections. His own party's establishment took part in this, and have retaken control and kicked him out of the parliamentary party - a party he has belonged to for about fifty years. Do things change for the better? Is there hope for the left in politics?

Thank you for your response.

I have now read through "If You Must Give Them a Gift, Then Give Them the Gift of Nonexistence".

I don't accept Benatar's Axiological Asymmetry; it feels intuitively obvious that a pinprick as one's only negative would be worth it for a life of happiness and pleasure. With respect to the article's Scales of Value in Human Lives, if we are talking an individual's net experience, I would place myself on the same scale as Matti, and would accept The Offer. However, if not the majority, I suspect a large minority of people have a net positive life.

The article's Explanations and Concluding Notes asks: What life quality would be too low for their potential child? How likely is it that it would happen? I feel even the mildest of bad lives are better not brought into being. The question I struggle with is, what probability makes it acceptable/unacceptable to procreate? 60% chance of a good life? 5% chance of a life of chronic suffering? I don't know the answer.

What he is proposing is different to negative utilitarianism, which is the minimisation of suffering, and is similar to the way we generally make ethical decisions, by weighing up competing instincts - save that he is prioritising "negative things"?

Aside from the usual problem that his principles are just the result of his subjective feelings, said principles are going to be disagreeable to practically everyone (your everyday person and NUs).

In the first case, is each person just to be charged 0.50 (because that's the amount of damage they caused) or some larger number (because they irreparably bankrupted the business)? Similarly, in the second case, is the person charged with $500,000 or some lesser amount? Please discuss... — jasonm

Depending on the country, the offender/s may not only be liable for repayment of the money taken, but for any additional damage their illegal action/s caused. In England, in certain circumstances, legal action can be taken for loss of opportunity - for example if the owner/s of the business had a plan to invest the money, they may be able to sue for the profits they are missing out on. Any criminal sentence is likely to take account of the total amount of damage done (within the sentencing limits courts are bound by).

In my view, there is not a correct answer as to what should be done. There is the question of why each of the one million people in the first scenario and the one person in the second scenario stole the money e.g. was it necessary to feed them and/or their family. There is another question of whether the business owner/s were deserving of the money e.g. were they producing something that harms people. Et cetera.

Today there is even now a popular 'hype' philosophy like "optimistic nihilism". But to me personally, it's just the same basically with hedonism, which basically it all sounds the same, eg: "just live in the present moment, enjoy life, since we only live once!". But again, is this all there is to life? existence? — niki wonoto

We create our own values and purpose.

This could be helping people as @universeness has said, or improving ourselves, such as by learning as much as possible.

I have actually lived as a nihilist (I won't go into details) — Andrew4Handel

As a moral nihilist (currently not permanently, hopefully) I think saying that Genocide or slavery is wrong is meaningless. It may be that as with tsunamis and the rest of nature extreme brutality and harm is just a feature of nature which is neither good nor bad It means moral values are personal preferences, sentiments, and emotions but that nothing "wrong" has ever happened and that we probably cannot justify prisons or punishments and telling people how they ought to behave. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed. With moral nihilism you can still have values, but with absolute nihilism nothing matters. That's a dangerous view.

No, I think the quality of content on here is more than reasonable. There are interesting discussions and plenty of knowledgeable members.

No, I think it's great for testing my beliefs and learning from others. And seeing pig pics.

But there is no one body that belongs to you since it is a different one each moment by your definition. Since you have a different body every moment, why do you not jump all around the neighborhood from one moment to the next? Or would you not notice if it did? That depends of course on if memory is part of this 'mind' you posit or part of the body.

I'm asking what ties the body you've selected/inhabited in one moment to the different body you selected in the next moment, and why that 2nd body needs to be a specific one and not a random one. — noAxioms

I would say even on a materialist approach the memories themselves are part of our mind.

And it seems okay to say that our body will not be the same, and we will thus have a different body.

Can you justify that? If the parts are moved one at a time, at which point does the identity move? What if one nail (or whatever part you designate as the critical one) is left with the ship being fixed? — noAxioms

I think the best way is to say that as soon you change it, it is not the same ship. This is contrary to the common way of identifying things, and would mean there is no Ship of Theseus until all of the original parts are put back together.

I'd rather deal with any difficulties that arise from this than say that an object that has been taken apart and then put back together is not the same object.

Your parts change all the time, and yet you probably consider yourself to be the same person as you were earlier. Less than a thousandth of a percent of your current material is original material, so are you somebody else now? — noAxioms

I have always considered "me" to be my mind. When I say something like "my body", I mean the body that belongs to me.

The ship is the same. It may have had its parts replaced. But the object, the whole ship with its holistic design, function and behaviour remains the same. — Benj96

That doesn't seem right to me. An object goes where its parts go. If the original parts were put back together, that would be The Ship of Theseus. And they can't both be The Ship of Theseus

That does not make much sense to me. What sort of barriers are you referring to?

Occam's razor is commonly used against the explanation "God did it". — creativesoul

As you've alluded to, Ockham's Razor has a qualification that "all things being equal" the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Let's say, just for the purpose of my argument, the evidence for a panpsychist and emergent view of consciousness is equal. There would be nothing getting in the way of panpsychism developing, as it has always been there, but for emergence there are barriers, such as the possibility that inanimate matter would never reach awareness, and further that consciousness would not be preferable for evolution (which many scientific tests are hinting at). There will be other barriers I can't even imagine to inanimate matter somehow becoming aware. It would be simpler to say it has always been there, and thus has no barriers to it becoming reality. The panpsychism has to have always been there for there to be symmetry with my argument about God.

All things being equal, God as always existing would have no more barriers, and is no less likely to exist than universe/s always existing.

We can only be said to have "free will" in that we make choices. Our making of choices isn't really free though.

Once a compatibilist, I now agree with Sam - a puppet on strings is not free.

Occam's razor is about reducing the likelihood for error. The fewest unprovable assumptions is best. The fewest entities is best.

The hitch seems to have been forgotten though...

...so long as there is no loss in explanatory power, the simplest explanation is the best. — creativesoul

It makes sense that the fewer barriers to something being true, the more likely it is to be true.

It is commonly used against belief in god, but I don't see how there are any barriers to something that has no cause.

In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe." — universeness

My understanding was that dark energy, which expands the universe, gains proportionally from other forms of energy within the universe, and the total energy within it will always be zero. In what sense is Sean saying energy is not conserved in an expanding universe?

Yeah, but that was said to a moron ^^, not mere troll/stupid person. — Vera Mont

:lol:

If I was to use "bad" in the loose sense, it would be for things such as this:

I will continue to eat meat without an ounce of guilt — I like sushi

Torture is not a positive term. If you cannot except that there is no room for discussion because you are not speaking the kind of English I am familiar with. — I like sushi

But, good, bad, negative, positive, are all value judgments. A preference is not.

When you say it is bad/negative to unduly torture, is it bad/negative because most people are opposed to it or because you feel it is bad/negative? Neither is reason to be saying it is bad/negative in my view, and the problem is more obvious when large amounts of people disagree with each other, such as with consequentialists and deontologists.

In everyday life I am happy to use good and bad in the loose sense of what my preference is. But all it is really is a preference.

He must have been toxically persuasive to any un assuming layman (good at hiding his agenda and even better at manipulating people into doing his bidding for him). — Benj96

Luckily people have learnt from history and wouldn't be taken in by a charismatic conman :grimace:

The proponents of both consequentialism and deontology having good intentions is different to consequentialism and deontology being good. I'm going to say it - Hitler believed what it was doing was good, it doesn't make what he was doing good. Same for less extreme examples.

The most obvious example is the difference between consequentialists and deontologists. Which group is right, and why? — Down The Rabbit Hole

You mean ‘right’ or ‘correct’? Which is ‘right’? Both. Which is ‘correct’ neither. — I like sushi

I use "morally right" and "morally correct" interchangeably.

Are you using "right" to mean "good"? That's fair enough, but I still wouldn't say two conflicting positions are both good.

So am I. I don't wish to cause suffering. So what exactly are we arguing/discussing? — Benj96

It is more academic than of practical consequence.

I don't know if you're a consequentialist or deontologist, but my position would be that whichever group you fall into, you are no more right than the other group is. You just have different preferences.

Our feelings of what is morally right and wrong clash with other people's feelings of what is morally right and wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Show me that someone (other than a masochist or someone otherwise deranged) actively seeks out torture and I will eat my words. — I like sushi

The problem is the foundation of your truth statement (your feelings) is the same foundation as the masochist and deranged people's foundation of their contrary truth statement.

Who is right, the consequentialist or the deontologist, and why? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why are you asking? — I like sushi

The most obvious example is the difference between consequentialists and deontologists. Which group is right, and why?

Well, I agree with @Moliere:

And so it seems to me that you've missed the point of morality. Who cares that it's not "true"? — Moliere

I am strongly opposed to causing suffering irrespective of whether it is morally wrong.

Our feelings of what is morally right and wrong clash with other people's feelings of what is morally right and wrong. Who is right, the consequentialist or the deontologist, and why?

Oh please. Literally every answer begs another question. All of them. How then is that a useful basis for your argument against — Benj96

That's only if you are asking different questions to each answer.

If you keep asking why something is morally bad, eventually the answer to the question is because you feel it is bad. It is all built upon your feelings.

"Why is life good? Because we are still here." — Benj96

Discounting those that don't want to be here, or are indifferent to being here, the fact we are still here would at best mean we prefer to be here. Why would it be good for us to get what we prefer?

Okay … I guess murder and rape are good then because I say so. If you argue against this then you cannot possibly believe what you just claimed. — I like sushi

Are you not misunderstanding what @Leftist is saying? Their position would be that murder and rape is neither good nor bad, and your say so doesn't make it good or bad.

Any justification you give for it being bad, such as "it causes suffering" would beg another question "why is suffering bad", if you keep asking the question of the previous answer, eventually all you'll have is "because I feel it is bad". Is truth (truth of it being good or bad) determined by your feelings? What about if your feelings conflict with another (such as a consequentialist and a deontologist) - which of you determines what is true? Wouldn't it be easier to admit there is no right and wrong answer to moral questions?

Ok, we can go a bit further. The point made by the article Bart cited (not by Bart) is that conservation of energy need not hold; the system may not be closed. That's a fair point, but if it is not closed there would be an identifiable source of energy flowing into the system - work would get done for free. — Banno

Just had a read of the article. It's completely different to what @Bartricks is saying but close to what @Metaphysician Undercover is saying (@Metaphysician Undercover is saying the conservation of energy principle is incorrect, and Rodrigues is saying it could be).

I think the best approach for those that believe in spirits would be to say that when doing work, the spirits are just returning the energy they are using. But you make a good point:

The argument remains that if spirit has an impact on the physical world, then it does work and hence uses energy. That is, if spirit has an impact on the physical world then it is part of physics. Any posited dualism collapses. — Banno

Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs). — Banno

Thank God someone understood what I was saying.

@Bartricks saying that it does not take energy for the spirits to be activated made my argument about energy coming from nowhere when they move things in the physical world easier.

However, if it is asserted that the spirits (whether minds or ghosts) use energy, it is not so easy. The stock argument is that even if the spirit takes energy from the physical systems and then adds the same amount of energy back, the amount of energy within the system would be fluctuating. The total amount of energy within the system is not supposed to be fluctuating, it is supposed to remain constant per the conservation of energy principle.

Yes, a ghost like Casper. If Casper started moving things in the physical world, but required no energy himself, he would be adding energy from nowhere?

I kinda feel the same way about the word 'immaterial.' — universeness

Yes, the immaterial is the spirit realm.

According to @Bartricks immaterial things don't need energy to function. However, ghosts and minds would still create physical energy when they move things in the physical world, contrary to the conservation of energy principle.

Yes, fair point :up:

Unless the evidence forces us there, believing in a spirit realm feels like giving up on science.

Like Sean Carroll I prefer the label physicalist rather than materialist. I'm not sure there is any real difference.

Yes, all of our thoughts stem from something that is not our thoughts. Even if thoughts stem from our other thoughts, the first thought was caused by something that was not our thought.

Just makes you doubt what seems obvious when someone as distinguished as Penrose says there could be free will.

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". It seems pretty obvious to me, however Nobel Prize winning Sir Roger Penrose says quantum mechanics provides hope for free will. I don't know of his reasoning for this.