(November 8, 2011 at 3:42 am)Vaginasaur Wrote:

(November 8, 2011 at 3:35 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Because they were your own opinions there was nothing to answer.

You are wrong if you think you have a choice?

How is it wrong? We're by-products of a consuming, cannibalising and reproducing DNA molecule, we have the capacity of addiction through sensual pleasures and attachment to things in our environment, we have the cognitive abilities to do this reasoning and logic thing. This is a human being is it not?

You are wrong if you think you have a choice?

(November 8, 2011 at 3:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You are wrong if you think you have a choice?

Well you have to demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed. We're essentially just vehicles for a DNA molecule that has the means of reproducing itself.

(November 8, 2011 at 3:54 am)Vaginasaur Wrote:

(November 8, 2011 at 3:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You are wrong if you think you have a choice?

Well you have to demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed. We're essentially just vehicles for a DNA molecule that has the means of reproducing itself.

No I don't. That part is your opinion.

vagie Wrote:Anyway, just my thoughts. We only know what we know with the information, beliefs and priorities we have at any given moment in time. No need to hate, just appreciate what we all have in common

You are not paying attention.

I think you are wrong to propose that your versions are available and we have a choice ..please re-read your post (as will I)

---

vagie Wrote:Meaningless and amoral universe with a cycle of unnecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on the present generation by the generation preceding it due to insane and deluded animals mistakenly believing that they are bestowing something precious - sentience - that needs to be perpetuated at any costs.

Meaningless and amoral universe with no unecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on future generations by the present generation.

Pretty tough decision to make isn't it?

Is what I'm addressing here as to your error

Quote:Hi,

I think pessimism is the rational perceptive to have.

Good for you. You have an opinion. It doesn't mean it's true, it means it's your philosophy. In reality, it is not the only rational perception to have. Don't think I didn't notice you went on to claim that cancer can be cured by video games, and rambled ignorantly about the actual power of mind. If you really thought pessimism is the rational perception, then why would you expect people to even want to be cured of cancer? That sort of thing requires optimism. I'm left unclear about your ability to rationalize anything now.

Quote:Throughout the history of this planet, only a small percentage of life has been doing this contemplating the universe thing, and having high-minded conversations about how beautiful life is and how wonderful their experiences have been. But life isn't anything like this, it's a replicating DNA molecule that has been reproducing and consuming itself for approximately 4 billion years.

If that was all life was, we wouldn't be able to do things like "this contemplating the universe thing." Life is learning, contemplating, feeling, suffering, joy, and without these things, we'd be rocks.

Quote:Does it have a purpose? No, it was just an accident of biology, which perpetuated all these different manifestations of life.

Possibly it has no meaning in the broad sense. If I didn't love my children, or find it to be meaningful to be their mother, I would have just let them starve to death or something. If everyone held this meaningless position, then evolution by natural selection would have ceased the reproduction of our DNA. Children would not survive past infancy if the the beings whom spawned them found taking care of them meaningless. It is instilled in us to find meaning in things, for without it the continuation of our species would not occur.

Take Sea Turtles, for example.

http://www.conserveturtles.org/seaturtle...e=behavior

Quote:If they don't make it to the ocean quickly, many hatchlings will die of dehydration in the sun or be caught by predators like birds and crabs. Once in the water, they typically swim several miles off shore, where they are caught in currents and seaweed that may carry them for years before returning to nearshore waters. There are many obstacles for hatchlings in the open ocean. Sharks, big fish and circling birds all eat baby turtles, and they die after accidentally eating tar balls and plastic garbage. The obstacles are so numerous for baby turtles that only about one in 1,000 survives to adulthood.

Although the mother finds the meaning in protecting them while they're in eggs, she abandons them when they're born, almost as if she finds no meaning in protecting them now. She's reproduced, passed on her DNA, and her job is done. Yeah, they're an endangered species.

Quote:And what are we? We are simply puppets animated by the non-benign chemistry that has been pulling our strings for hundreds of thousands of years.

Speak for yourself.

Quote:You think you have a self, a solitary unity self with a fixed identity? Well, sorry to break it to you, but you don't. Your subjective experiences are just the end result of electrochemical activity in your brain.

Interesting claim. Evidence?

Quote:Our species has become so deluded from reality that we can't even see the only thing which is meaningful - sentience - that which we take for granted. None of this material has any real value, it's all just perceptual, the value is inside ourselves. The conscious welfare of all sentient beings is what matters.

This is not pessimism. This is altruism. Get your isms straight before running off at the mouth.

Quote:We still create sentient beings that are capable of experiencing pain and suffering for our own edification. We haven't demonstrated any capacity to solve this hate problem, we think we can somehow take control of nature when we are the very part of the problem we seek to solve.

Wait.. didn't you state before that we just meaninglessly replicate our DNA? Now we do it for our own edification? So there's meaning, at least. Think things through. Please. Do you even know the root of hate? Does a spider wrap a fly up in it's own junk, and then suck it's innards out because he hates the fly, or because that's how the fly survives? Not all of us think we can take control of nature, but you seem to passionately wish you could... especially strange for a self-proclaimed "pessimist".

Quote:We will not be able to control the technology that we are currently busy designing and experimenting with. We hope that this will lead humanity to inevitable moral progress. It won't.

Who is "We", and why do you continue to use all-encompassing language that insinuates that you have some sort of omniscient insight to the opinions on technology from every person in the world? Some people don't think that at all, so now you're just mindlessly assuming, and making irrational claims.

Quote:You can continue to fill your head with daydreaming and nonsensical wishful, hopeful thinking and talk about how beautiful and joyous your DNA ride is, or you can recognise that it isn't a ride at all, just a stupid molecule creating biological experiments.

pessimistic thinking is just as much a "seat" on the "DNA ride" as wishful/hopeful thinking. If you believe that it isn't, please explain how and why you came to believe this.

Quote:Ask yourself this question - Which would I prefer?

Meaningless and amoral universe with a cycle of unnecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on the present generation by the generation preceding it due to insane and deluded animals mistakenly believing that they are bestowing something precious - sentience - that needs to be perpetuated at any costs.

Meaningless and amoral universe with no unecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on future generations by the present generation.

Pretty tough decision to make isn't it?

Well, no, not at all. Once again this is your opinion on the meaning of life, or rather, lack thereof. Pain and suffering are a part of life. What you're suggesting is that we stop reproducing in order to stop inflicting anymore unnecessary pain on beings that didn't ask to exist. It's illogical. It just doesn't work that way.

You have a right to your opinion, but no right to impose it as a supreme ideal upon others.

Quote:Anyway, just my thoughts. We only know what we know with the information, beliefs and priorities we have at any given moment in time. No need to hate, just appreciate what we all have in common.

Thanks.

Yes, and as you age you will come to realize that the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

(November 8, 2011 at 4:25 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: No I don't. That part is your opinion.

How is it my opinion? Big bang -> abiogenesis -> evolution -> sentience

Do you deny any of these?

(November 8, 2011 at 4:33 am)Vaginasaur Wrote:

(November 8, 2011 at 4:25 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: No I don't. That part is your opinion.

How is it my opinion? Big bang -> abiogenesis -> evolution -> sentience

Do you deny any of these?

That was not your question nor your statement please pay attention vagie

I'll respond to you later, aleialoura. I've been over most of that in previous posts.

(November 8, 2011 at 3:54 am)Vaginasaur Wrote:

(November 8, 2011 at 3:46 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You are wrong if you think you have a choice?

Well you have to demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed. We're essentially just vehicles for a DNA molecule that has the means of reproducing itself.

This is essentially true.....

And your point?

Thanks for finally initiating the debate, appreciate it.

Quote:Hi,

I think pessimism is the rational perceptive to have.

aleialoura Wrote:Good for you. You have an opinion. It doesn't mean it's true, it means it's your philosophy. In reality, it is not the only rational perception to have. Don't think I didn't notice you went on to claim that cancer can be cured by video games, and rambled ignorantly about the actual power of mind. If you really thought pessimism is the rational perception, then why would you expect people to even want to be cured of cancer? That sort of thing requires optimism. I'm left unclear about your ability to rationalize anything now.

I'm objectively pessimistic and subjectively optimistic. We have three psychological phenomena that make self-assessments of our life's quality unreliable, the first being the pollyanna principle which is the most general and most influential of the psychological phenomena which gives us a tendency towards optimism. The second being what could be called adaptation, accommodation or habituation which gives us a tendency to adjust to significant dissatisfaction and adapt to the new situation with new expectations accordingly. The third being the implicit comparison with the well-being of others which only gives a comparative rather than an actual indicator of the quality of one's life. From an evolutionary perspective these psychological phenomena favour reproduction and militate against suicide. Thus, if we knew the true quality of our life, people would be more prone to killing themselves, or at at least not pass on their DNA to the next generation. Pessimism, then, tends not to be naturally selected.

Quote:Throughout the history of this planet, only a small percentage of life has been doing this contemplating the universe thing, and having high-minded conversations about how beautiful life is and how wonderful their experiences have been. But life isn't anything like this, it's a replicating DNA molecule that has been reproducing and consuming itself for approximately 4 billion years.

aleialoura Wrote:If that was all life was, we wouldn't be able to do things like "this contemplating the universe thing." Life is learning, contemplating, feeling, suffering, joy, and without these things, we'd be rocks.

Well, in nature we have all these organisms eating each other, and if it wasn't for an asteroid impacting Earth, this place could still have been dominated by dinosaurs, there would be no grace or beauty, it would still be an ugly bug planet.

Quote:Does it have a purpose? No, it was just an accident of biology, which perpetuated all these different manifestations of life.

aleialoura Wrote:Possibly it has no meaning in the broad sense. If I didn't love my children, or find it to be meaningful to be their mother, I would have just let them starve to death or something. If everyone held this meaningless position, then evolution by natural selection would have ceased the reproduction of our DNA. Children would not survive past infancy if the the beings whom spawned them found taking care of them meaningless. It is instilled in us to find meaning in things, for without it the continuation of our species would not occur.

This is my intention with this philosophy, an antinatalist approach to the human species. Not to neglect the children already brought into existence obviously, but to cease procreation of our species.

aleialoura Wrote:Although the mother finds the meaning in protecting them while they're in eggs, she abandons them when they're born, almost as if she finds no meaning in protecting them now. She's reproduced, passed on her DNA, and her job is done. Yeah, they're an endangered species.

The reason why they're an endangered species is because they lack the instincts to care for their young and protect them against the harms of nature, thus natural selection does not favour this species.

Quote:And what are we? We are simply puppets animated by the non-benign chemistry that has been pulling our strings for hundreds of thousands of years.

aleialoura Wrote:Speak for yourself.

This is essentially what all sentient life is.

Quote:You think you have a self, a solitary unity self with a fixed identity? Well, sorry to break it to you, but you don't. Your subjective experiences are just the end result of electrochemical activity in your brain.

aleialoura Wrote:Interesting claim. Evidence?

You experience your reality through your senses (human physical senses of a normal functioning human being include: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, balance and acceleration, temperature, kinetic sense, and pain) your brain then takes this information and asks the question, "what is this?" and is answered via the information and beliefs you already have. The brain then asked another question, "what should I do with this?" or "what does this mean to me?" and is answered via the information and beliefs already there. You then make a decision, which translates into your behaviour and emotion.

That's pretty much the basics of conscious experience.

Quote:Our species has become so deluded from reality that we can't even see the only thing which is meaningful - sentience - that which we take for granted. None of this material has any real value, it's all just perceptual, the value is inside ourselves. The conscious welfare of all sentient beings is what matters.

aleialoura Wrote:This is not pessimism. This is altruism. Get your isms straight before running off at the mouth.

Yes, I realise it's very altruistic too, sorry for not mentioning so. This is the reason why I'm a vegan in my personal life, I can't bear the thought of killing another animal for the consumption of its meat, the only time I would do this is if I can across an animal that was in severe pain and had no hope of surviving, which I would put out of its misery like any decent human being would.

Quote:We still create sentient beings that are capable of experiencing pain and suffering for our own edification. We haven't demonstrated any capacity to solve this hate problem, we think we can somehow take control of nature when we are the very part of the problem we seek to solve.

aleialoura Wrote:Wait.. didn't you state before that we just meaninglessly replicate our DNA? Now we do it for our own edification? So there's meaning, at least. Think things through. Please. Do you even know the root of hate? Does a spider wrap a fly up in it's own junk, and then suck it's innards out because he hates the fly, or because that's how the fly survives? Not all of us think we can take control of nature, but you seem to passionately wish you could... especially strange for a self-proclaimed "pessimist".

Humans are self-conscious beings. Most people don't think about their reproductive choices, they don't ask the question as to why our species should procreate. Children are brought into this world either via accidental fertilisation, or to pass on the genes of the previous generation or some other selfish intent such as utilisation, it is never for the sake of that child.

Quote:We will not be able to control the technology that we are currently busy designing and experimenting with. We hope that this will lead humanity to inevitable moral progress. It won't.

aleialoura Wrote:Who is "We", and why do you continue to use all-encompassing language that insinuates that you have some sort of omniscient insight to the opinions on technology from every person in the world? Some people don't think that at all, so now you're just mindlessly assuming, and making irrational claims.

So, I'm assuming that you believe in a utopian society of some sort?

Quote:You can continue to fill your head with daydreaming and nonsensical wishful, hopeful thinking and talk about how beautiful and joyous your DNA ride is, or you can recognise that it isn't a ride at all, just a stupid molecule creating biological experiments.

aleialoura Wrote:pessimistic thinking is just as much a "seat" on the "DNA ride" as wishful/hopeful thinking. If you believe that it isn't, please explain how and why you came to believe this.

Well, having a negative value judgement on life, I believe that this species is at a dead end and the continuation of the perpetuation of our species is utterly meaningless and creates more suffering for sentient beings, and that bestowing sentience on another organism is an unethical imposition.

Quote:Ask yourself this question - Which would I prefer?

Meaningless and amoral universe with a cycle of unnecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on the present generation by the generation preceding it due to insane and deluded animals mistakenly believing that they are bestowing something precious - sentience - that needs to be perpetuated at any costs.

Meaningless and amoral universe with no unecessary pain, suffering and death inflicted on future generations by the present generation.

Pretty tough decision to make isn't it?

aleialoura Wrote:Well, no, not at all. Once again this is your opinion on the meaning of life, or rather, lack thereof. Pain and suffering are a part of life. What you're suggesting is that we stop reproducing in order to stop inflicting anymore unnecessary pain on beings that didn't ask to exist. It's illogical. It just doesn't work that way.

It's not illogical at all, we know through our subjective experience what the pleasure pain principle is, and what the consequences of sentience are.

aleialoura Wrote:You have a right to your opinion, but no right to impose it as a supreme ideal upon others.

Well, since I consider this argument logically sound, you have no right to procreate.

Quote:Anyway, just my thoughts. We only know what we know with the information, beliefs and priorities we have at any given moment in time. No need to hate, just appreciate what we all have in common.

Thanks.

aleialoura Wrote:Yes, and as you age you will come to realize that the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

I don't think that's likely, this is the most important question in terms of our existence. You're using argumentum ad hominem by the way.

(November 8, 2011 at 7:37 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

Quote:Well you have to demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed. We're essentially just vehicles for a DNA molecule that has the means of reproducing itself.

This is essentially true.....

And your point?

A phased extinction of our species is in order. (I would go one step further into designing a technology to bring about the extinction of all life, but not at the current point in this debate.)

(November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm)Vaginasaur Wrote:

(November 8, 2011 at 7:37 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

Quote:Well you have to demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed. We're essentially just vehicles for a DNA molecule that has the means of reproducing itself.

This is essentially true.....

And your point?

A phased extinction of our species is in order. (I would go one step further into designing a technology to bring about the extinction of all life, but not at the current point in this debate.)

You're a happy little vegemite aren't you....

Not an Emo by any chance?