not posting some of your exact statements right now partly to make my posts shorter and partly because I'm not exactly clear on how to post replies clearly yet. Thanks for your response again, Age. This is regarding your most recent post.
You stated:
If a 'spaceship' came and landed on earth 'tomorrow', (or in other words, 'in the future'), with living beings/creatures, then who or what would you think was inside controlling that 'ship'? What would you call 'them'?
My response is...I'd call them aliens. I'm not sure what the goal of that question is, but that's my most concise answer: aliens. A more accurate description would be extraterrestrials...because the word "alien" can merely refer to human beings who are foreigners, but it definitely seems like for most English speakers I'm familiar with the word "alien" most often tends to imply that the being is an extraterrestrial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated the following:
This IS HAPPENING 'right now', in the days when this is being written. And, is CONTINUALLY HAPPENING 'right now', in the future to 'you', people, when this WAS being written.
in response to the below comment I made:
I'll greatly enjoy anything that uses futuristic potential technologies or powerful aliens to create a thought experiment. For example, here's a question: Your society can build a group of super humans that are smarter, healthier, kinder, harder-working, and have better impulse control than modern humans.
While I agree that we are creating "superhumans" with those sorts of improved qualities I described, some key differences between my proposed "superhumans" and the ones naturally produced through lucky genetics are A: You and I would know that my proposed "superhumans" were actually superhumans...whereas we're going to have a much more difficult time determining that existing humans with lucky genetics are these sorts of just...better in basically every way types of humans. And B: modern humans with lucky genetics have no means of being zipped away off to another universe. Both those differences are key factors in my proposed thought experiment. Also, it's a very utilitarian thought experiment. If you believe utilitarianism is one of the better ways of building moral codes and enjoy thinking about utilitarian calculus, you might find the specifics of my analysis of it interesting. Otherwise, I doubt you're going to have much interest in my explanation of my analysis of it, so I'll skip that for now...unless you do have an interest in that very long conversation which would be considerably longer if you do not already spend much time thinking about utilitarian calculus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated this:
But what is 'modern' to 'you', back in those 'OLDEN DAYS', when this WAS being written, IS NOT 'modern' AT ALL, to 'us'.
I disagree, given that this was written a few days ago. I'd say a few days ago would be quite modern to everyone on Earth. Modern is a term that refers to aspects of existence that are similar to today. I doubt anyone will be able to think of any major trends or aspects of culture that have changed much over the past few days. I'd say even in war-torn areas of Ukraine on the front lines where massive, life-altering changes are occurring daily, they'd still call a few days ago "modern" just because for most of the world, culture would not have altered much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated this:
'Superhuman' is a Truly ABSURD term, and just a plain old OXYMORON to say the least.
Also, there is NO "other" Universe.
Furthermore, here is ANOTHER example of a TYPICAL 'thought pattern' of the adult human being, back in those days when this was being written, that is; ONLY DOING some 'thing', which would HELP or BENEFIT the adult/s DOING that 'thing'.
VERY RARELY was there 'thinking' ABOUT "others", and the BENEFIT TO 'them'. It was almost always ABOUT what can 'we' GET FROM doing 'this thing'.
The very REASON OF PROCREATING is to do with the VERY Fact that 'they', the offspring, WILL HAVE TO 'live on their OWN'. So, the Right 'thing' in Life TO DO, when and after reaching PROCREATING AGE IS TO DO what IS Right for 'the offspring', and DOING SO WILL and DOES leave one KNOWING that 'the offspring' WILL do WELL 'on their OWN'.
My response is:
*Superhuman essentially refers to someone that is an improved version of existing humans, except it's a quicker way of saying that. I haven't a clue why anyone would be opposed to that term.
*It doesn't matter whether there is another universe or not for the purposes of that thought experiment. In this thought experiment, another universe exists. The important part of the thought experiment is just that the superhumans have no means of ever contacting, or assisting, their parent species again. I felt that saying they left into another universe was the most concise method of getting across that point. I think discussing whether or not other universes can, do, or could exist could be interesting...for people who are not me...but I have zero opinions about that right now. I'm not especially knowledgeable about that type of scientific knowledge, and while I find it interesting and useful, I tend to have little to contribute to those types of discussions. I definitely know that some people who appear much more intelligent than I do wonder if there are multiple universes though...so I strongly suspect you are wrong. It's your confidence that I disagree with...not the prospect that there is only one universe. To convince me you are correct, you'd have to explain why so many seeming experts discuss multiverse theory so often, and do mention the prospect of multiple universes, as a start. I can do a google search and several people with impressive titles claiming they consider it a possibility that multiple universes exist.
*Regarding the following:
VERY RARELY was there 'thinking' ABOUT "others", and the BENEFIT TO 'them'. It was almost always ABOUT what can 'we' GET FROM doing 'this thing'.
The very REASON OF PROCREATING is to do with the VERY Fact that 'they', the offspring, WILL HAVE TO 'live on their OWN'. So, the Right 'thing' in Life TO DO, when and after reaching PROCREATING AGE IS TO DO what IS Right for 'the offspring', and DOING SO WILL and DOES leave one KNOWING that 'the offspring' WILL do WELL 'on their OWN'.
I agree with that...and I'll emphasize that I don't think I implied anything that disagrees with that. I don't think my statements have had much to do with either of these topics, so if they were made in support of something I've said, I'm not sure what it was. Therefore, I'm not sure what the significance of those statements is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated the following:
If 'you' think or BELIEVE that the word 'I' IS 'an atheist' and/or 'an utilitarian', then 'you' ARE, VERY SADLY, MISTAKEN.
Also, what 'you' ARE DOING here, so far, is NOT ANSWERING the ACTUAL SPECIFIC QUESTIONS that I posed, and ASKED 'you', and instead, if I recall correctly, ARE just repeating what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED earlier.
Now, HOW, EXACTLY, being a so-called "atheist" or "utilitarian" then this equates to LIKING being the environments you mentioned here?
And, WHY do you feel or want some NEED to 'stand out a little more'?
'you' could FIND people TO DISAGREE WITH just about ANYWHERE 'you', adult human beings, exist, in the days when this is being written.
'What' ARE 'those issues', EXACTLY, if "other people" might be looking to argue ABOUT, which you might then enjoy 'it'?
My response is...I have no idea what the following means:
*
If 'you' think or BELIEVE that the word 'I' IS 'an atheist' and/or 'an utilitarian', then 'you' ARE, VERY SADLY, MISTAKEN.
*I've been doing a wonderful job answering the questions you posed. I've been spending a great deal of time doing so. I'm not going to be answering everything perfectly, and have not responded to everything, because doing so takes a great deal of time, and because I wanted to spare you from having to read a book in a comments section, and because several of your statements either have been unclear to me or could be answered in multiple ways. Please keep in mind I've been putting a great deal of time and effort into my responses. It's often worth it to me, because I consider the opportunity to have discussions about philosophy to be a rare treasure...but I do prefer it when people understand the fairly large amount of thought and work I nearly always put into my discussions too. If my responses haven't been satisfactory, you need to explain why or be content with what I post, or rephrase your comments and questions.
*This doesn't make sense:
Now, HOW, EXACTLY, being a so-called "atheist" or "utilitarian" then this equates to LIKING being the environments you mentioned here?
*This doesn't make sense:
And, WHY do you feel or want some NEED to 'stand out a little more'?
*Regarding this:
*'you' could FIND people TO DISAGREE WITH just about ANYWHERE 'you', adult human beings, exist, in the days when this is being written.
No I can't. I can't disagree with my relatives about most controversial topics, because I have to live with them and that might upset them. I can't disagree with coworkers about most controversial topics because that might cause problems at work. I can disagree with my friends...but if they're my friends they're probably either my friends because we don't talk about controversial topics, or because we already agree on most controversial topics. So, there's pretty much nowhere where I, and most of society, can disagree with people about much, except for online environments like this, which is why I perceive them as invaluable...especially if they're filled with people who want to discuss things in detail, and I suspect that's this type of environment, at least moreso than places like Youtube and other environments filled with people uninterested in philosophy.
* 'What' ARE 'those issues', EXACTLY, if "other people" might be looking to argue ABOUT, which you might then enjoy 'it'?
I think it would be swifter to discuss what I tend to not have much of an interest in discussing: topics that involve extensive research or that focus on semantics and proper terminology. I love discussing how utilitarian calculus should work with my fellow utilitarians. I can never find as many of them as I'd like. I like trying to convince people that God can't exist unless it was created by some other intelligence. I believe that the teleological, ontological, and cosmological arguments are all misleading and bias people against atheism, and I like to explain why. I like to discuss my views about how aliens would likely behave. I like to discuss my view that hedonistic utilitarian thinking is, basically, the only way to create accurate moral codes. I like to discuss my moral code, which is a brand of utilitarianism that seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize for all feeling life in all possible universes throughout all of time. I like to discuss how I believe there is no other rational source for moral codes than the goal of increasing pleasure and reducing suffering. I like to discuss my view that God-belief likely causes more harm than good...and I like to discuss my view that God-belief can be beneficial at times too...and most topics that don't involve much research or sematic bickering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
So, to you, the Universe IS a so-called 'super organism', as OBVIOUSLY ALL the organism WITHIN 'It' 'work together', right?
Yes...but that's obvious. What's not obvious is the degree to which all feeling life are a super organism, and in what contexts. That's where I think I have disagreements with most of society. I delved into some details about how that works a bit already. This is another potentially extremely lengthy discussion.
*You stated this:
What IS 'someone', like 'me' (or 'myself'), EXACTLY?
By that I meant that I could be talking about you. Really, if you'd like to discuss this thought experiment you're referring to aspects of...I think it'd be better for me to create a single post describing it in full, and then you could respond to that, because right now I've not really explained much about what it is, and right now you asking questions about it is going to lead down a bunch of tangents that aren't going to involve that thought experiment, and perhaps not areas of interest I have or that I've thought about. I could just copy past the full 1 page MS word document thought experiment to this thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO or WHAT do 'you' think or BELIEVE does the 'your' word refer to, EXACTLY, in the phrase or term 'your memories'?
To 'me', OBVIOUSLY if there IS a physical body, of ANY shape or form, with the EXACT SAME 'thoughts' AND 'memories' WITHIN 'it', then 'i' WOULD BE EXACTLY living on, in, or through 'that body'.
And, this is just because of 'WHO' and 'WHAT' the word 'you', REFERS TO, EXACTLY.
See my above comments about, if you're interested in this, I should probably just post the full thought experiment. It deals with all this stuff. I think describing the thought experiment would be a better, more full, way of starting to answer these questions than just doing so here too. I don't think I can provide a good response to those questions without describing that thought experiment. I think it's probably the best introduction to my worldview I can think of. I designed it to be an hopefully entertaining sci-fi thought experiment introduction to my worldview, actually. We're dealing with a very complex series of topics that I don't think can be dealt with well in a few sentences.
But just within a VERY SHORT PERIOD of 'time', and a LITTLE BIT of 'introspection', then what could and would be VERY SIMPLY, EASILY, and QUICKLY UNCOVERED is that 'i' am IN BOTH of those physical bodies.
I agree...basically. I could think of circumstances in which I don't think we should treat everyone that way though...which again, I'd say reading the full thought experiment is a good introduction to that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What DOES 'this' seem 'that way', to 'you, here?
Aside from what I've already described...I don't have any interest in discussing whether or not I'm correct in my perceptions of most of society. I don't see that as revealing much regarding interesting truths about reality. At most it might tell me that I don't understand other people's perspectives as well as I think I do, which is something I could find out from numerous sources that don't involve discussion.
Okay. So, HOW, EXACTLY, do 'you' perceive 'individuality', AND, HOW, EXACTLY, do 'most people' perceive 'individuality, to 'you'?
Well, I've been writing a potentially thick book about that, so I could either write an entire book in this thread...which I don't intend to do...or I could just say that I perceive feeling life as more of a super organism than most people do, or I could post the above thought experiment that I've been talking about, as a pretty good start, I'd say.
'Positive' in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Some people liked my thought experiment at the philosophy conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Described, most often', by WHO, EXACTLY?
Me...based on how most of society seem to define God. Now, I'm not convinced most of society would describe god that way. They might be more likely to describe God as simply the creator of all that it is not, or something like that. I don't think that's the best description for it though, and I think mine is better, because that definition does not require sentience, and I'd strongly suspect that if the majority of the world who believe in the God of Abraham found out tomorrow that there was a God, but it was neither sentient nor intelligent, they'd not consider the existence of that God as being especially relevant, because what they're interested in is a sentient God who rules the universe - a paternal character who is the source of all answers and righter of wrongs and provider of purpose - a father figure. I wouldn't think a non-sentient source for the universe could feel like a father figure to most people who've been imagining God as a father figure...even though I bet it might to various pantheists...but I'd say they're in the extreme minority and I'd argue that a non-sentient God is indistinguishable from atheism anyway.
Okay. BUT, IF, instead of putting those 'star thingy things' at the beginning of your sentences here, which I have absolutely NO idea 'what' the following words are referring back to, EXACTLY, you just QUOTED the ACTUAL PART that you are replying to, then this would make UNDERSTANDING here MUCH EASIER, SIMPLER, and QUICKER.
'What' WAS 'my comment', AND, 'what' WAS 'your statement', EXACTLY?
I'll keep that in mind next time. Sadly, I've already written a lot already. I'm still figuring out how the quoting system works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated this:
That would, OBVIOUSLY, depend FULLY on WHERE along the evolutionary scale those "others" ARE, EXACTLY, in relation to WHERE 'you', human beings, ARE, when 'contact' WAS made.
in response to my statement of:
I could, actually, imagine aliens perceiving us as similar to how I perceive the nonhuman animals I'm calling unintelligent.
I agree. I'm referring to modern humans in that case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated this:
Does 'this' MEAN that 'you' do NOT think that DESTROYING ANY 'thing' "else", which 'you' consider to be LESS 'intelligent' then 'you', would be 'morally wrong', necessarily?
In response to this:
I don't think destroying us would be morally wrong necessarily,
My response is...I mean I think destroying all of humanity, including myself, and people more intelligent than me, and people less intelligent than me, would not be morally wrong, necessarily. It depends on how its done and what impacts it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it 'this' 'kind of thinking', that is; attempts at "justifying" and/or "rationalizing", which helps 'you' in ALLOWING 'you' TO DESTROY "OTHER" 'things'
If by rationalizing and justifying you mean seeking justice and being rational...then, in some instances, yes, such as when I had my fourteen year old dog with heart problems who could no longer walk put to sleep. I can think of few to no other circumstances in which I'd see good reason to destroy other things in modern times though that I'm likely to encounter...with exceptions of things like biting insects and ants in the house. For example, with animals, fewer prey animals just mean more starvation of their predators. Fewer predators just mean overpopulation and sickness of the prey. Given that I can't drive all unintelligent feeling life in nature into extinction...I don't think there's much I can do to help or harm it, aside from not causing it extra harm for now.
I will note, however, that I'd say that by far the most harm we're doing to the animal world comes through factory farming. Eating factory-farmed food is certainly not limited to people with my worldview.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL BUT those "others" DO NOT NEED 'improving'.
The ONLY 'thing' here that NEEDS 'improving', and which SOON ENOUGH could NEVER BE QUICK ENOUGH, IS 'you', adult human beings.
There is NOT "ANOTHER" 'known thing' in the WHOLE Universe that ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY NEEDS 'improving', like 'you', adult human beings, REALLY DO.
Well, let me put things this way. Here's how I see the natural world. Imagine that a bunch of homeless human beings with severe mental problems were tossed into the wilderness. Half of them wear blue shirts. Half of them wear red shirts. The smartest of them have similar levels of intelligence as a five year old child. Most of them are significantly less intelligent. They frequently cannibalize and have sex with each other. The red shirts try to cannibalize the blue shirts and the blue shirts try to cannibalize the red shirts.
If you think the natural world operates in any relevant way differently than that...I'd be very interested in hearing your explanation regarding why. I think that's a wonderful depiction of how nature, red in tooth and claw, works that really illustrates its problems that I definitely think we need to fix. All those animals around us don't have any better understanding of the world around them as those humans with mental disabilities. Also, the pain they feel, especially if they're mammals, from being eaten may feel very similar to what humans feel. I think we should fix that for the same reason I think people with severe mental disabilities should be cared for, preferably by loving people...as opposed to being left out in the wilderness where they cannibalize and have sex with each other, and procreate without really having the intelligence to be capable of consent.
Even if you do believe the painless destruction of those life forms to be bad (which I don't) worse case scenario we're talking about a temporary "bad" thing that could prevent billions of years of mindless, Darwinian gladiatorial arena-style life. I think humanity has a duty to end that one day. We can't now, but eventually I hope we'll be able to survive without other life on Earth and do it.
Or...if we're not going to end that process entirely, at least we could alter it to make it less barbaric, possibly genetically engineering life forms to not feel pain as strongly or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is this apparent OBSESSION WITH DESTROYING what 'you', "clinton", consider to be 'unintelligent life'?
Which, by the way, the ONLY 'non intelligent life' in the known Universe IS, AGAIN, 'you', adult human beings, ALONE.
I can't imagine why adult human beings would be considered the only unintelligent life in the universe by anyone. I have an obsession with destroying things so much because the vast majority of the population seems to perceive death as far more harmful than it actually is, and I find that frustrating when I see that mentality's impact on things like abortion...which commonly end up actually harming the fetus in attempts to help it, and harming the mother as well. It's incredibly frustrating imagining some sixteen year old not getting an early abortion because she thinks it's murder, and in doing so decreasing the quality of hear life as well as her unborn fetus's. It's much more frustrating hearing about people pressuring her to go down that route. One a fetus can experience pain there is a valid reason to consider not aborting it. Before then though, there is no reason not to if the mother wants to...and I find it incredibly frustrating that much of society don't seem to understand that, and the only explanation I can think of for that is that people perceive death as more harmful than it actually is. Without the abortion issue, I probably wouldn't be as obsessed as I, admittedly, am though. It is also a central tenet of my worldview though, so I'd talk about it regardless, just not as much. Also, destroying other life in the universe is the main reason why I want humanity to expand throughout the stars. It's the reason why I donate platelets frequently. Everything good I do is because I believe it will help humanity endure somehow and spread throughout the stars faster to destroy other life forms...so it's a very important part of my worldview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sneak up on a 'tiger', if 'it' is NOT 'fearing death', then 'what', EXACTLY, is 'it' FEARING?
2. If there is NOT a 'care' about 'the species' going extinct or not, then WHY does 'it' do ALL 'it' can and does to PROCREATE.
3. Sure, I AGREE that there is NOT A 'thing' like A 'person' INSIDE the physical 'tiger' body considering 'life' AND 'death' NOR contemplating on the extinction or not of the species 'tiger'. But, I AM TOTALLY SURE there ARE 'genes' WITHIN the 'tiger' body that ARE doing ALL 'they' can in KEEPING 'tiger' ALIVE, and KEEPING 'the species' FROM going extinct.
1. What the tiger fears is not death, so far as I can tell. Its fear is a product of its instincts...not the prospect of fear of death death. Fearing death would mean fearing losing your sentience. Tigers will fear certain things regardless of whether or not they've seen other tigers die. They therefore have no reason to, at least in all instances, understand that their sentience might fade after death. To fear death requires a pretty complex thought process that associates a lack of consciousness with the inability to move. To understand that, I have no clue how you wouldn't need language to roll such concepts around in your mind and perhaps even talk about them to understand them. Even if they do fear death, they lack an understanding of the world around them to really think about whether or not they want to be alive much. They understand things like hunger and joys at the hunt and concern for their cubs. Their world would be one of emotions...probably not the complex thoughts humans are capable of, because when I think about those complex concepts, I pretty much always use language, which tigers don't have. They have communication...but not the ability to use a finite number of symbols to communicate a potentially infinite number of meanings called language.
2. Species aside from humans don't procreate to keep their species alive. They procreate either due to instinctive reasons, or emotional ones.
3. What we want, and what our genes drive us to do, are completely different things. Rape, for example, is a very useful strategy for dolphins, and maybe even humans, for procreation. If I can get away with rape and not be caught, from an evolutionary perspective, I should probably do it. That's not what I want to do though, because I'm more than my instincts. What's good for me has little to do with my instincts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND, 'you' COULD DRIVE human beings INTO EXTINCTION, AND 'one at a time', if you that so pleases you ALSO, WITHOUT causing human beings ANY MORE fear NOR trauma, AS WELL.
BUT SO WHAT?
What is YOUR apparent OBSESSION here WITH 'death' AND 'destruction' OF "others"?
No, you couldn't do the same with humans. If you'd kill off humans one at a time, just think of the terror that would cause: some faceless ghost killing people in their sleep. Society would collapse into anarchy and terror if it was common enough. If it was small scale, it would still be a local terror. Imagine all the parents and wives and husbands and brothers and sisters and children crying at the loss of their relatives and friends. It would be truly tragic...and that's my response to your "so what" comment. That's why that would cause problems....Basically the reason why that would cause problems is just about everything you and I likely care about most.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLY IF 'you' ARE VERY IMMATURE, FEARFUL, AFRAID, and/or 'you' were somewhat PRESUMING 'you' WERE GOING TO LIVE FOREVER.
Will 'you' EXPLAIN to 'us', readers, here, now, WHY 'you' WOULD and WILL 'panic' AND 'suffer' WHEN 'you' FIND OUT that 'you' are GOING TO DIE?
Also, a vast majority of 'you', human beings, could NOT CARE LESS, and EVEN LESS than a 'tiger' would.
Kind of...partly...if you're willing to defined almost all humans as very immature, fearful and afraid, which I'd not do. People have good reason to fear death regardless of whether or not they'll live forever though. I'd say it's a pretty primal survival instinct that's very difficult for many of us to deal with (certainly me...I have a lot of instinctive fear of death). Furthermore, there are other concerns society would have. If a species might destroy us...why should I care about the future? Society would be much more likely to collapse without as many people planning for the future.
I don't not want to die at all. I'm not saying that's logical...but the prospect of me being destroyed extra early by some aliens or something would cause me suffering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How MANY species do 'you' consider ARE 'intelligent', and WHO would be so-called 'alarmed' AT such a 'thing' as 'this' here?
IF 'you' EVER respond to 'this QUESTION', then this WILL HELP 'us' IN UNDERSTANDING 'you', and 'your lot' MUCH BETTER.
So far I only know that I'd consider humans to be especially intelligent. Dolphins might count in some ways, if they can use language. I was mostly thinking about potential aliens though. If aliens are willing to destroy one intelligent species, that might alarm other aliens and make them concerned they'd be destroyed, perhaps triggering intense distrust and/or fear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT, you just got through, in the sentence DIRECTLY BEFORE 'this one', SAYING and CLAIMING that there are OTHER intelligent species. So, 'what', EXACTLY, IS the ACTUAL 'noteworthy difference' between 'you', human beings, AND OTHER 'organisms', on earth?
'It' OBVIOUSLY could NOT be 'intelligence'. That is; if 'we' are to take 'your words' here.
If believe I meant "other intelligent species" in the sense that aliens could exist and that dolphins might be described as intelligent to me, in a human-ish category, if they use language. The main difference I see between humans and other species on Earth has to do with our ability to us language, (unless dolphins can use it too) and the technology and awareness resulting from that, because that allows us to be harmed by death in many more ways than other species.
I do agree that intelligence is not necessarily the primary qualifier here. I think it's a fine general shorthand description of what I'm talking about though. I would argue that humans are pretty much, on average, more intelligent than about everything else most likely, so in general the more intelligent the more they'll fall into the humanish, language-using category I'm talking about that would lose more from death in more ways than most species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you going on ABOUT now?
The so-called 'youth' COULD and WOULD so-call 'raise' "themselves" FAR BETTER and FAR MORE SUCCESSFULLY than 'you', adulterated people, COULD and HAVE.
So...what you just said...and there is no other possible interpretation of your statement...is that you would prefer babies raised by children than adults. I assume you did not actually mean what you just said and that the problem is that you didn't phrase yourself appropriately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one can OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'suffer' while ALIVE. So, if you are HELL BENT on KILLING and DESTROYING a WHOLE GROUP of human beings, or ANY one
"ELSE", then there will be NO 'form of suffering' for that NON EXISTENT GROUP, ANYMORE AT ALL.
I agree. That's why I have many of the goals I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, one can ONLY grant so-called 'free will' WITH and FROM so-called 'greater knowledge', right?
If yes, then this MEANS that NO new born has 'free will' correct?
And it is ONLY through evolution, itself, that 'you', human beings, are GAINING MORE and MORE 'free will' as 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, GAIN GREATER and GREATER 'knowledge', along the way, true?
I would say that it's ever-increasing knowledge that grants us more free will. I don't think that requires evolution, except for social evolution and the evolution of ideas. I think evolution tends to have a lot to do with us gaining more free will...which would have very little to do with genetic evolution and very much to do with social evolution, the evolution of society, the evolution of ideas and ways of thinking, and if we're around for long enough, I'm assuming genetic engineering could quite possibly end up having much more to do with genetic evolution than what we inherit from our parents.
I won't disagree with your statement though.
And yes, I'd definitely say no new born has free will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT ALL 'tigers', 'insects', 'amoebas', AND 'new born human infants', for example, KNOW what 'they' WANT 'out of life'.
It is ONLY 'you', adult human beings, how have BECOME LOST and CONFUSED in 'this' regard.
Okay...let's do a thought experiment here. You're dropped onto an alien planet. You know you're hungry. You know you're thirsty. You know your free will says that you don't like this sensation of hunger and thirst and you want to be rid of it. There are a series of buttons before you. You don't know what they do. You press one of them. It makes a newborn baby. Was that your free will? I assume it wasn't...and in that same way, a lack of knowledge about the world leads to a lack of free will in the areas we're not knowledgeable about. That's why insects, tigers, ameobas, and newborn infants don't know what they want in life, except in simple emotional ways. For example, all except the ameobas and maybe the insects know that when they're hungry they want food. That is what their free will says. Now...why would a tiger necessarily associate sex with the production of cubs? They're two events that happen far apart from each other. In that way, I figure that if the tiger even would think about whether or not it should have cubs...which I don't know why it would in any way comparable to how humans would...it would be pretty comparable to you pressing that button and having a baby pop up. So, in all but the most simple ways its up to we humans to determine what the free will of animals and infants really says to do, because we're going to be better at understanding what they really want than they do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL and 'what' IS so-called 'true language', EXACTLY?
not sure why you said "lol" there. True language would be the ability to use a finite number of symbols to produce a potentially infinite number of meanings. So far only humans have been known to be able to do this...unless there is information about dolphins I've not seen of late...or maybe some other species, but I doubt it.
Language is important. I figure it essentially functions as DNA 2.0. It allows societies to change dramatically with just a few words. It allows much faster changes and adaptation than the slow progress of genetic changes that are responsible for much of the behavioral changes species without language make.
You know the difference between the cities of humans and tribes of chimanzees? That's pretty much just language, and the information we can store and spread that the chimpanzees can't. I kind of wonder if dolphins might have some impressive technologies too...if they have language...but it would all have to be psychological if they do, because they lack hands - social tools and concepts and such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated this:
might be as teachable as humans are, but their lack of knowledge about the world, right now, would still lead to fewer risks of suffering caused by destroying them than there would be for most life...and I consider the only relevant goals of anything being increasing pleasure and reducing suffering, so if something gets destroyed in a way that doesn't create suffering, I figure that's not inherently bad.
and in response you stated this:
Okay, BUT, SO WHAT?
What does what 'you', "clinton", here, figure to be so-called 'inherently bad' or not got to do with ANY ACTUAL 'thing', in Life?
It's relevant because I'm talking about whether or not it's okay to destroy certain life forms in certain ways. Keep in mind that, if that's not specific enough...it's because you've been asking about 20 billion questions at once. I've spent several hours on this alone. I'm not going to delve fully into any of views if I'm going to be responding to 20 billion questions at once. I appreciate the opportunity to state my views...but I really was envisioning people who wanted to talk to me discussing one topic at a time. I don't know how you're not going blind when reading all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated this: *The improved existences I spoke of would be best defined as better lives because they'd involve more of what the animals would want and less of what they don't want...which would be more pleasure and less suffering...through perhaps, for example, reducing an organism's capacity to experience pain through genetic engineering.
You responded with this:
Have 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, REALLY BECOME SO, what is sometimes called, 'wimpy', that 'you' now SERIOUSLY WANT to REDUCE a 'part' that ACTUALLY makes 'you', human, which are; 'experiences'?
Also, IMAGINE if 'you' REDUCED the capacity to experience pain, in let us say 'a foot' here, so much that you just kept walking around with a broken ankle. Now, HOW WELL do 'you' IMAGINE that 'this' would do FOR 'you'.
EXPERIENCE 'pain' IS a PART of 'life' AND 'living', AND a VERY NECESSARY PART I WILL ADD here.
Your broken foot example is one reason why it would be my preference to destroy life rather than make it experience less pain.
However, a third path could be to essentially make all life into our pets, more or less, sterilizing various animals and only driving the predators into extinction so that they don't overpopulate, and euthanizing them when they they reach a point of sufficient suffering.
I figure if you still feel impressive pain from a broken foot, just not as much pain, you'd still quite possibly avoid walking on your foot though. I don't know how the specifics would work yet. Maybe we could either genetically engineer some kind of substitute motivation that doesn't feel painful at all, but still motivates animals to not walk on the broken foot. I salute you for considering that though.
Regarding your statement about reducing that which makes us human being bad...I think that's a very seriously harmful thought process. What's so great about being human? I think I'd rather be a cyborg that lives for thousands of years, can operate a computer with my mind, and replace faulty organs with even more machines. I think it's very dangerous to perceive that which is natural or traditional as automatically good. That's because mother nature is a mindless witch who cares only about us procreating. She made the octopus that dies when it procreates. The instincts she put in us are not necessarily any kinder to us than to the octopus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT WHY WOULD ANY Truly 'intelligent animal or species' REALLY WANT TO DESTROY ANY OTHER animal or species?
What ACTUAL PURPOSE in Life would there FOR DOING SO?
To help them see my above comment comparing the natural world to a bunch of retarded people tossed into the wilderness and left to fend for themselves - cannibalizing and having sex with each other. Also, this question of yours' reveals a major problem I'd say much of society has: You perceive death as inherently negative, it seems. In reality, I'd say it's neutral, and because you don't see things that way, your perspective can harm life you believe are being helped by keeping them alive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY would ANY SANE person even WANT TO 'consider' such 'things' AS 'this', LET ALONE TALK ABOUT 'them' IN 'private' with "another", let alone IN PUBLIC?
Well...why I want to talk about my views to everybody else is because I think society has a lot of other problems I could solve through my ideas...such as Nazism and at least certain forms of pedophelia and maybe even inspire clinically diagnosed psychopaths to behave better. My worldview treats all life as part of each other. It says that it's our duty to assist each other, and I think it does it through logic. Because it does it through logic, I would hope that it could motivate even people without consciences to behave better...such as psychopaths. An unavoidable part of logic of my worldview involves all this advocation of destruction. Everyone who understands the math of my worldview should inevitably agree about the aspects that advocate destruction too, I think.
Why I might wonder if other people are interested in talking about my views is the same reason you are. People like trying to convince other people to see the truth oftentimes, which I'd hope is why you're talking to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But WHO CARES what 'you' WANT?
If you HAVE a sound AND valid argument for some 'thing' here, then I suggest providing 'it'.
Otherwise, if you do NOT have a sound AND valid argument for what 'you' WANT, then I suggest NOT TELLING 'us' what 'you' WANT.
You're behaving strangely here. You should expect me to only provide a brief glimpse into my ideas when discussing 20 billion topics with me at once. Obviously, I'm probably not going to want to spend the energy proving much. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss my views...but I'm at almost 7,000 words now. I don't intend to write a novel here in this one post. If you want a deep dive into a specific topic...I need to you to be willing to spend much more time writing specific enough of well-thought out questions that convince me I should more time on them, and focusing on one topic at a time could help.
Regarding your question about "who cares what you want." Apparently you did. I was responding to your statements. Make better statements if you want better answers. I've spent hours on this. Many of your questions have been brief, unclear, and poorly thought out. You've got no right to complain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, 'your' preference here is to DESTROY 'this planet' and ALL the OTHER life forms on it, and then FLEE, while LOOKING FOR somewhere ELSE to INHABIT, and DESTROY, and then FLEE AGAIN, after DESTROYING EVERY 'thing', and then LOOK FOR somewhere ELSE to INHABIT, and TO, AGAIN, DESTROY ALL, and then REPEAT, and RE-REPEAT, AGAIN, correct?
if yes, then could I just ASK, WHY, EXACTLY?
No...we wouldn't necessarily inhabit new planets. Ideally, we'd just find new planets specifically to destroy the unintelligent life on them.
(see my thoughts comparing the natural world to a bunch of retarded people tossed into the wilderness to have sex with and cannibalize each other)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well 'you' are PROVING 'this' IRREFUTABLY True with 'preferences' like 'YOURS" above here.
says the person who believes children raising babies would be better than adults raising them like you said you did above
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if one's preference is to FLEE 'one's home', AND to DESTROY ALL life on 'that home', then 'this' is CERTAINLY NOT 'benevolent', NOR 'wise', AT ALL, CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY
And I noticed you didn't even make the attempt to explain why. My goal is to help people. I've thought carefully about how to do this. You've not. So far as I can tell, your moral code is rooted much more in your impulses than mine. You trust Mother Nature/instincts too much...the ancient witch who made it so octopuses die when they procreate. We should be teaching people to ignore those instincts, and think using logic instead.
If you have a reason for not wanting to destroy the types of life forms I've been talking about...what is it? Simply saying I'm obviously wrong is quite weak. It's like saying nothing at all...but also suggesting that you have no real response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated this:
This is for a few reasons. Over time, we should develop progressively more knowledgeable sociologists and psychologists. Over time, I would not be surprised if we'd have progressively fewer problems with basic resource shortages through perpetually researching how to produce or obtain them, which means less desperate theft. Over time, I would not be surprised if we climb progressively higher up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and become progressively more interested in the self-actualization top of the pyramid. That suggests to me our descendants would become progressively more interested in ethics, and I believe there is an enormous, utilitarian and hedonistic math formula embedded into the laws of nature that intelligent species discover progressively more of the more they learn about reality, and discovering what that math formula says to do could provide species with an endless sense of purpose, and because we crave purpose, and endless motivation to keep becoming more benevolent.
You responded with this:
When this is being written, do 'you' REALLY NOT YET KNOW what 'your purpose is, EXACTLY, nor what 'the purpose' of 'life' IS, EXACTLY?
My response is: That has little to do with that paragraph. It mentioned people craving a sense of purpose, which the utilitarian math formula would, or at least could provide, I think.
However, I do believe I know what the purpose of life is: Maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. I don't know what other purpose life could have. Actually, I'm quite certain any other purpose beyond that is impossible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated this:
I believe this math formula tells life to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for all feeling life throughout all life throughout all of time.
You responded:
Yet, and VERY CONTRADICTORY, 'your preference' is to END ALL life on earth, and FLEEING, or RUNNING AWAY.
My response is: can not ending life reduce suffering? Life is no longer suffering if it's not alive.
Also...going back to my very important above comparison of the natural world to a bunch of retarded people being tossed into the wilderness to cannibalize and have sex with each other...if you think of all that suffering they're going through, you've got the option of either stopping that, or letting that cannibalistic severely retarded person orgy continue for billions of years if you don't stop it. I'm not going to get any more graphic...but the more disturbing that vision is, the more accurate it's going to be. As I see it, the natural world is a nightmare scenario, and humans have created a rare island of civility above the chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, are DOING what BECOMES 'universally condemned'.
No it's not. Mercy killing is not exactly a new idea. We have it for pets who are old and suffering. Also, I have no idea why you're talking about "adult human beings," when it seems like you're just talking to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering.
Okay. WHY would 'you' BELIEVE such a 'thing' as 'this'?
That's called hedonism, and the specific way I want to do that is through my brand of utilitarianism. I want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering because that's the only thing any life form cares about, or can care about, so far as I can tell. Of course, the phrase "maximize pleasure and minimize suffering" implies that all pleasure is to be maximized and all suffering is to be minimized, and I want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for organisms aside from myself for empathetic reasons. I look at it like, if pain feels bad to me, and pleasure feels good to me, those things feel pretty similar to other organisms, so I'm a hypocrite if I don't care about increasing their pleasure and reducing their suffering. The next series of questions involves how to do that...which is much more complex and brings me to a whole lot of utilitarian calculus, leading to many of the concepts I've thought up so far.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND, I could minimize 'your suffering', ALSO, by ENDING 'your life', AS WELL.
I would then "justify" 'this DOING, by just saying something like; I BELIEVE the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, AND I just maximized MY pleasure, by minimizing YOUR suffering COMPLETELY.
I approve of you bringing this up. That's good thinking.
That might minimize my suffering...possibly. That's not the most important factor in this though. The much more important factor is that we have to stop murderers or else society will collapse into panic and terror...which is partly a problem due to the fear it creates, but also a problem because it would presumably slow down the time it takes for humanity to spread into space and begin destroying unintelligent life, because a collapsed society isn't producing much technology.
(That's kind of weird...ain't it? The idea that the main reason why murder is bad is because it makes it take longer for us to destroy other life? Still, that's why I donate platelets frequently. That's the source of most good things I do. I want to strengthen the bonds of trust holding society together so society becomes less likely to collapse so we can expand into space and destroy life forms faster. I think that's the most important duty of humanity - without us, life all over the universe may be forced to endure billions of years of being forced into Darwinian gladiatorial arenas by parents that have no capacity to think about whether or not they should)
However, there are also other secondary factors to consider too. The murder would cause fear and pain in the people around me. We don't know if that would be greater than any suffering you save me from having to experience, even if I die in my sleep. Also, I wonder if there is some kind of threshold where, unless you're experiencing a life that involves enough suffering that your happiness level overall drops below that level of suffering, there is no reason to end your life, even painlessly, even if you have lived all your life in solitude. I strongly suspect there would be...because that's what life feels like to me, and when it comes down to it, feelings are really what tell us whether our life is worth living or not in many ways, and I don't feel like my life would ideally end.
Futhermore, I could be contributing to society and my loss could lead to an increase in suffering for others that is greater than you'd prevent me from experiencing. I've been donating platelets oftentimes of late, for example. Without me there might have been more people on waiting lists to get treatments who might have developed more problems otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY do you NOT BELIEVE that ALL abortions can ACTUALLY assist the unborn?
Because abortions in later stages of pregnancy can...at least possibly...cause pain. Some people seem to believe (last I checked) that fetuses won't be able to feel pain until quite late into the pregnancy, but there seems to be disagreement about that. It's only before they cause pain when I'd say it's probably helpful...because before they cause pain there are no downsides to them, but they help a mother avoid a situation she didn't want, and a child grow up into some life with some disadvantage over what it could have been due to having a mother that wanted an abortion for whatever reason she had for wanting one that would have likely negatively impacted the child's life.
There are people who believe the creation of all life is morally wrong. I'm not one of them. Part of my reasoning for that is my knowledge that creating new life can assist existing life. However, another part of my reasoning is that...while I see no reason to create new life unless it assists existing life, I'm not sure that it's a bad thing to create new life even if that new life is merely neutral to existing life...because at root, the only thing that can make life not worth living is how we feel about it, and my life doesn't feel like it's not worth living. I may change my mind if I ever experience something quite traumatic, but I've not yet experienced anything that traumatic.
I will emphasize that not getting an abortion, if the fetus is at a state before it can feel pain, cannot help the fetus though...at least not unless there would be some kind of other unpleasant sensation that wouldn't be described as pain. I don't know what that would be, and I wonder if that would be best described as pain too....it does seem like oftentimes people define any unpleasant sensation as pain. Sometimes it's just more psychological or emotional types of pain...or unpleasant sensations like queasiness that might be loosely described as a sort of pain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated this:
By "death" I mean the death of the body of an organism.
You responded with:
But WHEN is 'that', EXACTLY, to you?
The ACTUAL 'death of the body', to 'us', may be well way AFTER, or way BEFORE, to 'you', correct?
Here's one definition of death that I think works pretty well: Com
mission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research issued a report on defining death which called for a uniform definition of death based on a ‘total brain’ standard. This standard defines death as the death of the entire brain of a person.
I think most people have a pretty solid idea of what death is though. I do think it's possible to live on after death though in various degrees...with it being pretty much identical to you living on in your original body if your new body has memories that are nearly identical to the ones you had. I don't think my specific definition of death is especially important. What's important is that I think you can live on after your body dies...and that your body can die without you dying. For example, imagine that Bob has cancer. Bob clones himself, ages his clone up to adulthood, copies his memories into his clone's body, then goes to sleep and has a machine euthanize him in his sleep. In that scenario, I figure Bob's physical body has died, but Bob's still alive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You stated the below comment in response (I think) to my view that the most common view of death is the death of the body.
LOL But 'that' is one of the MOST ABSURD and Truly RIDICULOUS 'views'.
Also, HOW, EXACTLY, did 'you' ARRIVE at the CONCLUSION that 'that view' was the so-called 'most common default view'?
Yeah...come to think of it the above definition of death that refers to the death of the entire brain. That's probably more common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the comments. Keep in mind that the reason why this is so long is because you asked and made comments on about 20 billion different things rather than focusing on one topic at a time. Also, keep in mind that it'll be perfectly reasonable for me to ignore comments that don't seem especially relevant or well-thought out, or even if I don't feel like answering them no matter how well thought out they are, given all the different topics you're delving into here at once.
