(September 5, 2019 at 12:56 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 11:48 am)Acrobat Wrote: Now, you're just not being truthful, or forthcoming. Clearly there are things in your life that keep your feet planted on the ground, rather than jumping onto the train tracks, the sort of things that make suicide not an attractive option, like it is for many people, and increasingly many people. The fact that you don't want to share what those things are doesn't mean that you don't have them.


Such organism are not able to contemplate the idea of not being, the idea of suicide. If they could, perhaps many of them would take their own lives too.

Because the human creature is able to contemplate and recognize the idea of not being, we require a further substructure to live, from not wanting to die, or disappear completely.

Your condescension from a position on top of thin ice is touching. 

there are all sorts of reasons I can come up with for not wanting to die.   But would I be ok with dying if none of these reasons are sound?   No.

So reason is just a vanity.   If I have no meaning in my life, mere survival as a surfacial layer to underlying urges formed what had hitherto preserved my genetic lineage would most assuredly prove to be meaning enough nonetheless.

If we took away all the things that you keep from wanting to die, you'd probably want to die. If we took all that keeps your feet planted on the platform, you'd probably want to jump in front of the train. 

It's what separates a man who wants to live, from a man who wants to take his life, or wishes his life were over. 

Take love for instance. If your parents have long since abandoned you, care little about you. If you lack friends, or people who love you, even if you had all the material and financial means to survive a long time, the idea of dying would probably be very welcome. Very little if anything, would keep you from wanting to continue living, other than the fear of pulling the plug yourself.

(September 5, 2019 at 1:09 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 12:56 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Your condescension from a position on top of thin ice is touching. 

there are all sorts of reasons I can come up with for not wanting to die.   But would I be ok with dying if none of these reasons are sound?   No.

So reason is just a vanity.   If I have no meaning in my life, mere survival as a surfacial layer to underlying urges formed what had hitherto preserved my genetic lineage would most assuredly prove to be meaning enough nonetheless.

If we took away all the things that you keep for wanting to die, you'd probably want to die. If we took all that keeps your feet planted on the platform, you'd probably want to jump in front of the train. 

It's what separates a man who wants to live, from a man who wants to take his life, or wishes his life were over. 

Take love for instance. If your parents have long since abandoned you, care little about you. If you lack friends, or people who love you, even if you had all the material and financial means to survive a long time, the idea of dying would probably be very welcome. Very little if anything, would keep you from wanting to continue living, other than the fear of doing it yourself.

No.   Most people don't want to live.   They simply instinctively don't want to die, and don't want to leave no progeny when death nonetheless inevitably comes.   They have the neurological circuitry to evaluate all experiences on a scale of different pleasantness which are also given primarily because of its survival value.   So they would prefer to make not dying less unpleasant.   Affecting to have something to live for makes not dying less unpleasant.

(September 5, 2019 at 7:46 am)Acrobat Wrote: Read what i said again.

The argument/accusation was over cherry picking what’s literal and non-literal. This is the accusation I’ve been addressing.

To try and change it to cherry picking what I follow and don’t follow, is moving the goal posts.

Apparently you need to read what I've said again... And no it isn't "moving the goals posts" because I never actually accused you of cherry-picking. Besides, cherry-picking is cherry-picking either way. And either way I never actually accused you of it.

Once again, you're not even actually reading what I'm saying to you. I never accused you of cherry-picking and here you are still ranting on and on about how I haven't proved an accusation which I never made.

(September 5, 2019 at 7:46 am)Acrobat Wrote: And I’ve responded multiple times to this, by being consistent, pointing out that I no more cherry pick what’s meant as literal vs non-literal, then I do when recognizing what’s sarcasm and not sarcasm. I even outlined this consistent methodology.

Once again, never actually accused you of cherry-picking.

Do you actually have a point here? Is this conversation going somewhere?

(September 5, 2019 at 1:13 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 1:09 pm)Acrobat Wrote: If we took away all the things that you keep for wanting to die, you'd probably want to die. If we took all that keeps your feet planted on the platform, you'd probably want to jump in front of the train. 

It's what separates a man who wants to live, from a man who wants to take his life, or wishes his life were over. 

Take love for instance. If your parents have long since abandoned you, care little about you. If you lack friends, or people who love you, even if you had all the material and financial means to survive a long time, the idea of dying would probably be very welcome. Very little if anything, would keep you from wanting to continue living, other than the fear of doing it yourself.

No.   Most people don't want to live.   They simply instinctively don't want to die, and don't want to leave no progeny when death nonetheless inevitably comes. 

This seems to be a projection on your part. I don't know if I want to poke this subject any further, because I am not your friend. 

I would hate to think that all that keeps your feet planted on the platform, is just a fear of death, and not a desire to live.

(September 5, 2019 at 1:23 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 1:13 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: No.   Most people don't want to live.   They simply instinctively don't want to die, and don't want to leave no progeny when death nonetheless inevitably comes. 

This seems to be a projection on your part. I don't know if I want to poke this subject any further, because I am not your friend. 

I would hate to think that all that keeps your feet planted on the platform, is just a fear of death, and not a desire to live.

The desire to live is a pleasant disguise for the fear of death.   I have no problem indulging in the pleasantness.   But I know fundamentally why it is pleasant at all.

(September 5, 2019 at 1:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 1:23 pm)Acrobat Wrote: This seems to be a projection on your part. I don't know if I want to poke this subject any further, because I am not your friend. 

I would hate to think that all that keeps your feet planted on the platform, is just a fear of death, and not a desire to live.

The desire to live is a pleasant disguise for the fear of death.   I have no problem indulging in the pleasantness.   But I know fundamentally why it is pleasant at all.

That doesn't seem to be true either. People will sacrifice their life for things of meaning. Like father willing to die for the sake of their loved ones, their children. In fact a man might be willing to die for the life of a stranger. 

Or those like MLK, and others who were willing to not just sacrifice their life, but willing to risk the lives of their family, for a cause they deeply believe in. 

Or German families hiding Jews even at the tremendous risk of getting caught and getting killed as result, is another example. 

Hell, even suicide bombers.

(September 5, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 1:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The desire to live is a pleasant disguise for the fear of death.   I have no problem indulging in the pleasantness.   But I know fundamentally why it is pleasant at all.

That doesn't seem to be true either. People will sacrifice their life for things of meaning. Like father willing to die for the sake of their loved ones, their children. In fact a man might be willing to die for the life of a stranger. 

Or those like MLK, and others who were willing to not just sacrifice their life, but willing to risk the lives of their family, for a cause they deeply believe in. 

Or German families hiding Jews even at the tremendous risk of getting caught and getting killed as result, is another example. 

Hell, even suicide bombers.

That is absolutely true, and would be obvious if you strip away the hagiography and flippant rationalization, and examine why is it that behavior seemingly counterproductive to the survival of individuals exhibiting the behavior nonetheless persist in the gene pool.


The fundamental criteria for what genes in a gene pool is to be selected by evolution is not the survival of the individual bearing the trait per se.   It is not even the survival of the lineal progenies of the individual bearing the trait.    Although in most circumstances these two help a lot.  


The fundamental criteria is survival of the genes that underlies the trait in the individual undergoing selection somewhere in the gene pool.  I might give my life to save my sister because my sister likely bear most of the same genes as me.   So giving my life ensures genes similar to mine, including the one that encourages me to sacrifice myself for my sister, survive.   

This is something which amateur depictions of evolution largely fail to grasp, depict or consider.

But this is most likely the underlying evolutionary behavioral mechanism by which people can be convinced to sacrifice themselves for others.  

It is the ability to account for the possibility that the objective of preserving their own direct gene line, which is the fundamental reason why there is instinct to preserve own life, does not necessarily provide the highest possible guaranty for the survival somewhere in the gene pool of genes defining one's own behavior, that facilitate the behavior you mention.

Evolution made it possible for humans to be convinced that the most fundamental objectives of survival, the survival of the genes underlying one's own behavior, is not necessarily best served by the survival of the individual in each circumstances.    It is sometimes best served by facilitating the survival of some perceived to have enough in common with us at the possible expense of our own survival.

In other words, evolution knows about direct survival of the genes through survival of the individual bearing it, and indirect survival of the genes through the sacrifice of some individuals bearing the genes.

You'll notice that when you poke and prod, these people have no real points. They want everything to be ambiguous and undefinable... that way, they can claim, "It's a wash! None of us really know anything! Might as well not even have the conversation, silly atheists!"

There does seem to be a conspicuous tendency to passing scattershot superficiality and obscurantism off as erudition.

(September 5, 2019 at 5:24 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: There does seem to be a conspicuous tendency to passing scattershot superficiality and obscurantism off as erudition.

Good strategy, no?

Beat around the bush, make it seem like you have some knowledge or education that the other party lacks, avoid giving any real answers to simple questions and feign intellectual superiority because you're clearly so much smarter than everyone else in the room.

Voila.