Glenn

4.4K posts

Glenn banner
Glenn

Glenn

@mtn_glenn

Philosophically Inclined. Sentiocentrist Liberal. All Puns Intended.

Los Angeles, CA Katılım Mayıs 2015
867 Takip Edilen341 Takipçiler
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@DeivonDrago When I start my microwave, I initialize a causal chain such that if I leave the room, I will upon my return experience the microwave's contents having changed from unheated food to heated food. Expanded agency doesn't change the nature of the substance our agency acts upon.
English
1
0
0
19
Deivon Drago
Deivon Drago@DeivonDrago·
That seems unlikely. We cannot replicate the physical processes of instrumentation through our experience. As such, instrumentation fundamentally extends the scope of what we can achieve cognitively by moving beyond experience as a limiting factor. The next step to this is autonomous intelligent robots, at which point - progress can be made without humans in the loop slowing things down.
English
1
0
0
14
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@DeivonDrago Instruments, computers, and other minds are all encountered and interacted with through experience. There is no quality attributable to a physical thing that doesn't ultimately serve to describe either an experience, or the structure of possible experience.
English
1
0
1
13
Deivon Drago
Deivon Drago@DeivonDrago·
This is not really true once you consider that most of our data comes through instrumentation, analysed extensively by computers, and then reviewed across many sets of minds. Now that does mean that we have full unfiltered access to reality, but it’s far better than the Hume-Kant framing of it.
English
1
0
0
16
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@DeivonDrago This is a question about what scientific evidence *is*. What we are collecting are experienced observations. Every quantity associated with physicality ultimately serves to describe our conscious experience of reality. Experience is the datum we have direct access to.
English
1
0
0
14
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@Annoyed_Science @memeticsisyphus It's a reasonable question; I was just amused by the phrasing. The abbreviated answer is essentially rule utilitarianism; i.e. moral rules define norms whose adherence produces the greatest flourishing. This makes self-defense categorically different than aggressive violence.
English
1
0
0
9
Dr. Bauer
Dr. Bauer@Annoyed_Science·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus Easy so you just said you are willing to inflict suffering on me to fight back. So now why is inflicting suffering good in this case and not in any others? It's pretty clear the further we good suffering alone isn't a very good metric.
English
1
0
0
11
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@Annoyed_Science @memeticsisyphus 😂 Genuinely one of my favorite responses I've ever received The literal answer is I would fight back, and failing that you would face legal repercussions and I would be injured. Would love to know how this relates to the "Is suffering bad?" question.
English
1
0
0
11
Dr. Bauer
Dr. Bauer@Annoyed_Science·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus Cool now what if I don't give a shit about what you just said and now want to beat the shit out of you? What now?
English
1
0
0
35
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@Annoyed_Science @memeticsisyphus The suffering of others matters for the same reason yours does. A willingness to voluntarily undertake suffering for the sake of chosen ends doesn't equate to a willingness to have suffering inflicted upon us against our will for the sake of someone else.
English
1
0
0
9
Dr. Bauer
Dr. Bauer@Annoyed_Science·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus So if there's a positive end for me then why do I need to care about the suffering of others? See we can keep going down this line.
English
1
0
0
10
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@waldenpod *a slight elevation in the matter arranged sidewalk-wise
English
0
0
4
88
Emerson Green
Emerson Green@waldenpod·
Nominalism just caused me to trip over a slight elevation in the sidewalk
English
4
6
79
2.9K
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@reggiefiel59373 @memeticsisyphus The number I am thinking of, despite being dependent on subjective experience, has an objectively correct answer. It's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact about my subjective state. Morality is similar, but it answers questions of suffering and fulfillment.
English
2
0
1
15
reggie fields
reggie fields@reggiefiel59373·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus "what number am i thinking of" has an objective answer. that doesnt seem to change the fact that: morality, if the product of a human's mind, is inherently subjective. not sure why this offends you.
English
1
0
2
16
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@ChoppedStand @memeticsisyphus I am referring to negatively valenced and aversive states of conscious experience. It is simply true that certain states of consciousness are, by their very nature, worth avoiding. Extreme and unavoidable physical pain is just an easy example; e.g. pressing a hand to a hot stove.
English
0
0
0
13
Discípulo del Hornero
Discípulo del Hornero@ChoppedStand·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus You are equating pain to suffering, which aren't the same Pain is a biological response, suffering is state of being To claim "Suffering is bad" is an empty claim, because people define suffering differently; you are equating it to pain, and doing gymnastics defending it
English
1
0
1
16
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@reggiefiel59373 @memeticsisyphus Morality does depend on the existence of conscious minds capable of experiencing suffering, but that doesn't make morality subjective. As an analogy, "What number am I thinking of?" has an objectively correct answer even though it depends on what my mind is doing subjectively.
English
1
0
0
22
reggie fields
reggie fields@reggiefiel59373·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus the argument isnt that suffering isnt bad the argument is if there is no god morality is just the product of humans mind and therefore, relative. this doesnt mean morality cant exist, it would just clearly be subjective. that is the point.
English
1
0
1
20
Dr. Bauer
Dr. Bauer@Annoyed_Science·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus Yes, but there's many cases where people avoid suffering only to make things worse. For example going to the gym makes you sore and exhausted. Yet it's short term suffering for long term health. So it's not clear all suffering is bad.
English
1
0
1
27
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@TheDopaVash @memeticsisyphus So e.g. suffering at the gym is made worthwhile by the fulfillment of improved health and fitness, and the other fulfilling activities that those states enable.
English
0
0
0
11
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@TheDopaVash @memeticsisyphus But what is it about those circumstances that render suffering good or bad? I'd posit that this question is itself answered through an assessment of suffering prevented or fulfillment achieved. And that answer itself circles back to suffering being bad (and fulfillment good).
English
1
0
0
19
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@TheDopaVash @memeticsisyphus Suffering can be instrumentally good but is in and of itself innately bad. That's why it requires an overriding purpose or necessity to make it good. Feels like we're mostly in agreement and just circling around minor semantic differences.
English
1
0
0
15
DopaVash
DopaVash@TheDopaVash·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus If suffering is the only avenue by which something good can come about, how can one say it is bad? This rhymes with 'Is the lion evil for murdering the gazelle' for me. We can agree that needless suffering is bad. That does not mean that suffering writ large is necessarily so.
English
1
0
3
16
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@TheDopaVash @memeticsisyphus People avoid suffering, especially extreme suffering, absent some overriding purpose that renders the suffering worthwhile. But a thing needing to be rendered worthwhile by something else is itself an indication that the thing itself, absent that purpose, is bad.
English
1
0
0
16
DopaVash
DopaVash@TheDopaVash·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus Yes, but you see that in your reply you're agreeing that people don't avoid suffering. I'm not even sure that you could say that people reliably avoid unnecessary suffering, but we're certainly willing to suffer for a purpose.
English
1
0
3
16
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
The evolutionary argument for valence realism
Glenn@mtn_glenn

@memeticsisyphus If suffering wasn't bad, it wouldn't serve its evolutionary function of causing avoidance. A child learning to walk learns to be careful around corners because stubbing your toe causes suffering. If stubbing your toe tasted like chocolate, people would do it eagerly.

English
0
0
0
42
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@memeticsisyphus Indeed, suffering can be instrumentally good when it serves some other positive end. But in and of itself (i.e. absent any positive end) suffering is bad. Hence why it is wrong to inflict needless suffering upon others.
English
2
0
2
218
memetic_sisyphus
memetic_sisyphus@memeticsisyphus·
@mtn_glenn The good could not have come without the suffering is indeed my point.
English
1
0
21
203
Glenn
Glenn@mtn_glenn·
@TheDopaVash @memeticsisyphus The suffering/badness of childbirth is endured for the sake of the goodness of new life. Absent that goodness as reward, the innate badness of suffering is self-evident. No one would voluntarily endure the pain of childbirth absent the potential for a child.
English
1
0
0
30
DopaVash
DopaVash@TheDopaVash·
@mtn_glenn @memeticsisyphus If this were true, humanity would have died out long ago. I'm assured that childbirth is indeed suffering, yet women do this multiple times. It isn't as simple as you say
English
1
0
4
36

Keşfet

@DeivonDrago @Annoyed_Science @memeticsisyphus @waldenpod @reggiefiel59373 @ChoppedStand @elonmusk @BarackObama