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.

No. Why would it?

The conservation of energy principle concerns the behaviour of the material world.

The point I have made is that dualism - interactionist dualism - does not violate it. — Bartricks

Even if it doesn't require energy itself, if something immaterial like a ghost or a mind acts on the material world, wouldn't this create physical energy?

Can immaterial events occur without material events as their causes - yes, I do not see why not. — Bartricks

In this case, does it not take energy for the mind to be activated? Where does this energy come from?

Also, mental energy turns into physical energy - adding to the energy within the physical world?

So, if dualism is true, then we have material event A causing immaterial event B, which causes material event C. — Bartricks

For clarity, what's an example of material event A causing immaterial event B? Is immaterial event B ever not caused by a material event?

The truth is, 'conservation of energy' is not true. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do physicists believe it is then? When given the choice to throw out the conservation of energy or cartesian dualism, they tend to throw out the latter.

It depends what definition of veganism you are using; philosophical of dietary. The Vegan Society says: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment".

Bearing in mind "as far as is possible and practicable", you can be a vegan that purchases and consumes animal products. However, unless you are in a situation such as living in a remote part of the world where you cannot grow crops, or you need medication derived from animals, etc, your purchase of animal products is causing suffering and death unnecessarily.

You suggest people should have a diet with meat, fish, etc, but this would mean to keep paying for animals to suffer and die when it is not necessary? “It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases", “These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes".

It doesn't feel right to me to cause animals to suffer and die just because we like the way they taste etc.

I think we should be nice to animals.

Don't want to get @schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed.

In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context? — Isaac

That is a good question. How can we judge an argument, when there can be no correct answer.

For one, I would say ability to convince. I don't know how far you would agree on this point, but in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. However, if presented with the question within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a fair number of people would opt to walk away. It feels wrong to them that people's happiness is contingent on others suffering. In the context I was using fair, unfair wouldn't make a lot of sense as an antonym, but would mean not fairly convincing.

Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.

Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it. — Isaac

Yes, that's a third option. A factual case that procreation is a better way to cut down on suffering than antinatalism. This is different to the other two in that there is a right and wrong answer to it.

Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering? — universeness

It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years.

I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nhs-cuts-excess-deaths-30000-study-research-royal-society-medicine-london-school-hygiene-martin-mckee-jeremy-hunt-a7585001.html

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Go on...

Why ought we discourage that? — Isaac

I don't believe there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. It could be argued, we ought to do what we feel is right. Thus, if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not.

It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is antinatalism the answer?

Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals. — ssu

Save for editing our biology to remove the ability to suffer (as promoted by David Pearce) there is only antinatalism. Everything else is mitigation of suffering.

Alternatively, one could say the hundreds of millions living in torture are a price worth paying for all of the happy lives/