Fire Ologist

You would have to use physical eyes and senses because it’s a physical thing, so you may get it wrong (as any eye would), but that’s the only way to i...

It’s not word. Don’t idealize it. It’s a physical pile of black and white. Can you see the border? I could go cut and paste it for you.

The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering...

Hmmm. Seems to me if something doesn’t exist then any reference to this non-existent thing makes the thing some theoretical thing. It’s not a real thi...

You couldn’t give the example of how a pumpkin is not a distinct object if there were no distinct objects. You certainly couldn’t covey such a thought...

:up: I don’t know about “all distinctions”. There is no reason there can’t be physical distinctions. They would work well to explain the difference ex...

I think you’ve given yourself an impossible task maybe. Let’s equate an “object” with a whole pizza, and “extension” with the dough, and “language” wi...

How about the question “how” instead of “why?” How is that? Your final answer still: It just is, so don’t ask again.

I agree. The individual human experience, with its questions, explanations, and willing beliefs, is impossible. Yet it is. We will never be satisfied ...

In order for everything to be connected, you have to have separate things that connect. So saying everything is connected, is saying everything is sep...

So do antinatalists believe we humans came here UNnaturally? What did ethics come from then? Look, I think we are talking past each other. My wife was...

But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally. We kill all humans off, and ethics is go...

Like reifying an abstract “good not to inflict” in the physical act of procreation. So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our live...

Antinatalism is a weird reification of being ethical, of the “good” as in a good choice being choosing not to inflict life with its suffering. Then we...

No you didn’t. You said “twig” and then said “tree” and then noticed how they were “touching” which still sets out two separate objects in order for “...

100 %. We don’t prove existence. We prove relations among the existing things we posit, or assume, or hypothesize, or believe, or know. You don’t prov...

Right. Just because everything is touching, like the tree touches the forrest floor, touching the whole Forrest, etc, etc, doesn’t mean you lose sight...

Mission accomplished. Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? Ok if you think that’s “delusional” of me how about simply: A...

I completely agree with that. And we should treat with a skeptical eye anything objective that is said of those types of objects of study that can be ...

I agree with that. There is more than objectivity, so much so that many think objectivity can be abandoned or ignored. I agree as well. I see a lot of...

Then you need to use a chalk baord that doesn’t need chalk. Or a board. Or somrthing we can talk about together.

“What” you can feel now. Sounds like an object. Sounds like an object. The feeling is objectified by “me” feeling. “My personal feeling of it as somet...

We never sense an “object”. We sense a “this object” like for example a “tree” and an “apple” and we abstract the idea “object” as either of those, an...

Fully agree. All of that is true. It is our duty to find the moral rule, to develop our own consciences, and then live accordingly. But the moral comp...

Exactly. There is no proof of existence. Only proofs about existing things that we lodge into the premises of our argumentative proofs.

These guys named Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John - they saw a guy hung to death on a cross, definitely dead, and buried, and then saw his body was mi...

The biggest hurdle to this this task is fundamentally you are trying to find object in the absence of language, but you have to use language as an ins...

Ok, but in order to make a disagreement, isn’t it “that” illusion being made discrete from “this” connection? You still have this and that. You still ...

Just to make sure I follow you here. You make three distinctions: 1. Sense data 2. Epistemic meaning 3. Conceptual schemes Correct?

Like face recognition. A device that sets boundaries. The boundary might cut off an ear, but it is a device that makes distinctions to carve out a sep...

Yes there is. A word is a device that can carve out a boundary. We can call them fictional but you are still reading some of them right now and using ...

We all can’t start or have a conversation without making distinctions and understanding what these distinctions refer to. Saying “pipe” in the first p...

So an antinatalist can say it is impermissible to procreate, to create a new fetus, in order to prevent suffering, but it is ok to kill a human fetus....

It’s a more clear blow than my same point about it being unnatural. It just means you can’t be a naturalist if you want to be an antinatalist. You cou...

This is two parts: 1. That SOMEONE does not exist. And 2. “Exist to suffer”. You are talking about the child as if actual, not potential. You did a mu...

Interesting point. An attack from a different flank. I’ve been pointing out that if the ethic was indeed a product of nature, it would be nature devel...

Wrong. YOU are still talking about the child too. You should be saying something like this: Do you, the potential parent want to be a person who infli...

It get it, antinatalism is a preventative act in your mind. Analogies to mitigative acts don’t impress you. These distinctions don’t impress my view o...

I agree. But the rest isn’t fairly arguable? Yes. But there’s no reasonable quarrel with “procreating is inflicting, and inflicting suffering because ...

Same kind of combination of eventualities that is asking these questions. Same place I am directing my answer. Nowhere else in the universe.

I would agree, and simply say there is no reason to think we live beyond death. If there is an afterlife it is as improbable as is a full explanation ...

Locations are in physical space. This isn’t a math problem yet.

So you never finish placing the sensors. The race never starts. You can’t ask what the screen will display. It’s not a math problem about distance and...

See, that reads to me like a breath of new air in the conversation. Sort of procreates some breathing space. Reminds me that we are talking about maki...

Hotel rooms is nonsense then. There is no such set imaginable. Just because in mathematics we can distinguish natural numbers from irrational numbers ...

Look, if in an argument, the premise includes a task that can’t be completed, and the conclusion includes completion of that task, then there is a con...

I wouldn’t argue with you that I’ve made arguments based on emotion in here. But there is a basic premise that suffering qua suffering is only bad, so...

That is not absolute. I’m not a utilitarian for instance. And antinatalism isn’t tailored to preventing suffering, it prevents everything, including w...

I’m claiming that because supertasks are impossible, anything posited about some state of affairs after they are completed is irrelevant and non-exist...

I agree they are impossible. So why do you disagree with the other things I’m saying? Am I saying annything inconsistent with the fact that completing...