schopenhauer1

No one is disputing this. The physical causes are not disputed, but that there is a mental aspect is at question. What is the nature of this.

That isn't being violated with how that is phrased. If there are humans, then this principle applies. You are putting another presupposition that ther...

So if qualia is equivalent to sense-data.. what is the objection of sense-data that you hold? If it is equivalent, what Dennett holds about qualia, is...

Can you explain what it means to be constituted by qualities? Is that like a sort of pansychism?

I'll just say what we agree on to see where the interesting debate lies: Agreed It seems like non-structural identity (quality) needs to be explained....

So why would moral claims be unfulfilled? If a person exists, do not cause harm or force a situation of burdens onto a future person. If a person does...

Do people exist in order for moral theory to exist though? Yes, I agree people need to exist for moral theory to be a thing at all, but there is some ...

Yes, the hard problem, agreed. I think most hard problemers would agree with the physical events part. As for information, I agree that information is...

Yes, you keep reiterating. I keep giving an answer that answers this question. The answer is, do not harm or force burdens onto others unnecessarily, ...

I would still say, how is it that one is equivalent to the other. We keep moving the goal posts, aka the Cartesian Theater fallacy. That's a fallacy I...

Again, why? What are we "looking for"? No one is throwing anyone away. Rather it's more like: "If I bring these cards out, they will cause harm. I am ...

I just don't get why this sentiment in any way negates antinatalism's claims.

I'm not looking yet, makes me want to respond. First you have to stop muddying the waters with "too the man" shit... Agree to the terms and argue civi...

Dennett is trying to say earlier, I think Dennett is mixing causation with metaphysics. The core problem seems to be, not that people can have differe...

Ugh, I do have to respond to this.. How could slavery and mass murder not be a harm to those individuals done to? Of course it is about harm. And I wi...

@"Isaac" I actually do really want to respond to some of what you said, but my point is you have to be more gracious and charitable. You are trying to...

I'm trying to figure this out ;). Again, why? The vision is not to create no people, but not to harm individuals. The outcome is no people.

Yep, the paradox isn't really one though. If there's no person, there is no suffering. The logic entails, if there is no person, there is no people, b...

I didn't see that until now.. Yes, certainly this is your debating style and it just makes this all unpleasant rather than interesting. I rather not k...

I am not answering now. I have tried to debate, but you have not in tried in good faith. You have not tried to debate with respect. I can go on and on...

Agreed here. Just because morality entails other people doesn't mean that thus we need to create other people so we can have morality. Do you see the ...

I don't understand why social groups have to be in the equation, and not just how we treat each other. Why is preserving social groups a part of moral...

No, you assume that I don't know ethics can be based on other premises. However, I indeed do think harm is the basis for most parts of morality, so yo...

No, here you are doing a debate tactic of turning substance into rhetoric (when honestly, that is what you do with the "this is what we think vs. you ...

I think Dennett might be confusing the origins of quale with its existence. Based on contexts clues from his thought experiments, is seems to be argui...

That's exactly the problem and the difference between our thinking. The benefits, while better than nothing to an individual who is born are NOT a mor...

These inverted quale experiments and such, are not the core problem in my opinion. Rather, that we have quale at all is the core problem. It is not wh...

Yes, see my last post that kind of addresses this. I find it interesting that the individual is considered for blame, accountability, going to work to...

@"Isaac"@"Srap Tasmaner"@"khaled" Based on the last series of posts the main thing I see here is a debate between humanity vs. individual. Some though...

That's a good question. Honestly, I can't recall, but I am sure I have had some pretty good debates that I actually enjoyed, and wasn't like pulling t...

This was my full response.. So we were talking about accountability in regards to decision-making: I was trying to get at: 1) Though I recognize that ...

This assumption isn't a conclusion that needs to be there. It's not obvious. It's exasperated Isaac desperately trying to say so.. It's the Village Gr...

That's simply your (bad) mischaracterization of what I stated. I stated this in the OP: Clearly stated is a viewpoint from a different perspective.. T...

Yes I get your problem. However, you didn't address the argument itself which is not about whether someone MIGHT enjoy it (or even if they are likely ...

I just find this to be where the disagreement in intuitions lie. Most ANs would say that this is akin to creating the game for someone else, and then ...

Oh and "suck it up buttercup" is actually a terrible phrase.. just thought it was funny when juxtoposed with your value-signalling pearl-clutching rem...

Oh and because it might lead to paths that are counterintuitive to what you find to be respectable doesn't make it not so because YOU think it isn't a...

You keep thinking, clutching your pearls that this isn't what most people think, is a philosophical argument. Most of philosophical debate, especially...

I don't speak for Khaled, so I am not answering for him, but I will explain what I see. He may have a different response. But you would have to answer...

This is essentially your argument over and over. They also ridiculed Galileo.

This is why it's not just about consent, but about what the consent is about. This person was ALREADY created. Thus, you are harming him, by waiting f...

You have to start somewhere. I get the notion that morality is based on a foundation and at some point you can't go much further. I will say this thou...

I don't see the problem here. You cannot ask for consent, yet you go ahead and make the decision for them that it would be okay to cause the condition...

The basis is on the idea that preventing harms are more important than whatever other excuse you have to procreate someone. In any other realm, this m...

Ok, I don't have any argument then. It's basically the Lucretius argument that we had eternity before and after our birth. I just don't see that as co...

Actually now that I read your post again, you were saying it would not attract concern. That would make sense then. To groups that do surveys, there w...

I find it interesting though, what would the concerns be per se? I'd be fascinated with a public discussion on this, without it being grossly mischara...

Here is the thing.. I can agree with you conclusions can show something is wrong, if those conclusions actually indeed cause harm to someone or a nega...

Sure.. But this sounds like justification for bringing people into being, because, well there was eternity before and after.. so why not ?-100 years o...

I'm not sure about all antinatalist philosophies, its not monolithic. The way I explain this version is to split up necessary and contingent suffering...