# Why do we exist ??? Simple question, a lifetime of doubt



## cantstopthinking (Aug 13, 2011)

Have you ever asked yourself the purpose of your existence ??? 

I had, when I was around 16. It was a turning point in my life, to say that I was actually nudge or forced to think of my existence because I had to choose the streams of study, whether it was the arts or sciences. I chose the sciences because it was the most practical and flexible at that time.

But to think of my real purpose, brings in the notion of "What are the goals in my life?" Its constantly changing though I would like to improve on a lot of thing that I'm not satisfied with...being an inventor of systems and processes are some of my ideas... because I dont have enough tech know hows for inventing things like machines etc etc

Then came the thought of how did "I" came about ? Is there a reason I'm here, with this extraordinary thought capability ?? With great powers comes great expectation from you. We're a rare kind, these NTs... I just thought I should make a mark while I'm alive...

But then again, the real reason we do all these actions is to have self glorification and self fulfilment ?? Does that make you happy ?? What are your thoughts ?? If someone said being a selfless giving person makes them happy, does it mean that they are themselves being selfish in their own agenda, albeit for a selfless cause ? 

I'll just leave it here, food for thought...roud:

+edit :

I realise I'm actually witnessing a lot of my peers going through self discovery. Some are genuinely curious, some are not bothered, some are just not capable of looking for answers, some are not curious at all(i hate this the most, they are just not intellectually curious, conforming to the social norm is so much easier for them. this makes them a pushover or just another brick in the wall) 

I'm not concerned about being extraordinary as much as I'm worried about being ordinary. I think we are all here to make a difference.


----------



## Ontheroadway (May 1, 2011)

I think that the idea of "why we are here" is a consequence that comes along with sentient consciousness. Animals (who have some level of sentience and consciousness) don't go around wondering why they are here. Yet they too are as alive as we are. It simply means we have an array of perceptions and choices in our level of consciousness that allows us to think about things like we do. We just are, and how we live our life determines how we leave it, and how we leave behind the people we've influenced along the way.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

You all exist for the sole purpose of entertaining ME! :laughing:

Seriously though, I've thought about this and can't come up with a good answer. Which really pisses me off. :angry:


----------



## Shane Ho (Sep 11, 2011)

We are accidents that happened, each with an infinitesimal likelihood of occurring. But we happened anyway.

We are all so lucky to be even alive. 

Consider:

- millions of sperms racing one another to the finish and it just so happens that one sperm won
-- series of events that led to our fathers meeting our moms
- extrapolate that to our grandparents, great-grandparents and so on...branching out into multiple family trees.

Multiply all that probabilities together (even considering only just 10 generations). Just imagine. 

Accidents. That is all.


----------



## cantstopthinking (Aug 13, 2011)

When you say accidents... don't need to think so far... maybe someone's condom just broke @@


----------



## TPlume (Aug 27, 2011)

Quoting what I said elsewhere for the same question:

"It's pretty simple actually..... it's just a big grand game... and it's all about playing it elegantly  Why do we play games? don't we restart it over and over again?" :happy:


----------



## Berdudget (Mar 24, 2011)

The simplest way I can put it is: The purpose of our existence is to enjoy it. The best way to enjoy it is to follow the manufacturer's instructions. If we do that, we will have peace and we can keep doing whatever it is we enjoy, forever.


----------



## day_dreamer (Nov 8, 2010)

When I was around 15, I used to read a lot of books on physics and big bang, etc. Slowly over the years, I started to develop my own theory as to why we exist. I don't know whether it is correct/true, but it pretty much satisfies question of existence to myself. It's pretty complicated to explain and neither do I wish to write pages, but in short- we exist for the sake of existence. (P.S: please note that I don't have physics to back this theory, it's just an observation and some logic to piece things together)

The fact matter and energy are interchangeable gave rise to a thought that they are made up of the same thing in the base level (e.g. sodium chloride is different as a compound from sodium and chlorine, but it contains sodium and chlorine in the atomic level. Though this logic is obviously flawed, the point is to represent the analogy of everything being made of the same thing at the base level). We could also exist as one universal sentient being (the base element that everything is made up of). But none of those "things" can individually manifest itself. Its a state before everything was created (or started to exist). No "things" had any individuality of their own, so it was good as not "existing" as a singular identity with its particular characteristics. It was a combined existence which summed up to being "nothing". That is when the need to create an identity (which is a sum of form, physical,chemical and other properties) was required. That is when "things" tore out to form an individual identity from that one sentient being, in order to "exist". 

It's like a clay doll being created with color and shape from a mass of clay. Now if you look at the mass of clay and the doll, you won't find any similarities apparently. But if you subject the clay doll to certain conditions (like water it down), then it will go back and combine to it's original mass of clay. What's the difference between one clay doll and another if both of them are in the form of same mass of clay? It's like existing without any "existence". If they have to "exist", they need to leave that clay form and carve their own shape, etc. 

Now to keep the identities separate (hence to make them "exist"), the conditions that could unify the dolls were taken away far from them. But existing in the doll form is unstable as each doll has it's own weaknesses and they cannot survive in the environment where their opposites also exist (e.g matter and anti matter). At some point of time, the conditions which kept them separate will affect the whole system and it will collapse into the original state of being a mass of clay. So the whole point of existence is to get destroyed again and merge together into one being. This keeps on repeating in a cycle- creation, existence, destruction. 

Now why the need to "exist" exists will cause the discussion to digress into my other theory of opposites, which will be too long to read :tongue:.

This theory just doesn't apply to humans, but all things existing including matter, energy, etc. I know this theory might sound a bit weird because a large chunk of the derivation is not stated to save boredom. This is something that I have come to deduce on my own, and MUST be taken with a pinch of salt! :crazy:


----------



## octetstream (Mar 1, 2011)

I exist because the youngest children of two families married, copulated, and produced me. Ugh, there's no correct or incorrect answer to this question because it requires subjective perspectives. Next.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

I would ask whether or not questioning our existence is a meaningful exercise, because the nature of non-existence is something we aren't equipped to deal with.


----------



## foobar (Sep 22, 2011)

Yes. I went through an existential crisis around the same age and became miserably depressed, fixated on "the meaning of it all", and very paranoid about death.

I found peace with this by figuring out there is no answer, and even if there were, we'd never know for sure what it was, anyways. And I'm cool with that. Life and the universe is fascinating and worthwhile even if we never figure it all out. Actually, I think its even more fascinating and worthwhile BECAUSE we'll never figure it all out.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

cantstopthinking said:


> But then again, the real reason we do all these actions is to have self glorification and self fulfilment ?? Does that make you happy ?? What are your thoughts ?? If someone said being a selfless giving person makes them happy, does it mean that they are themselves being selfish in their own agenda, albeit for a selfless cause ?


Te's get self-glorification and self-fulfillment from logical accomplishment...from getting complex things done...from achievement of the difficult or seemingly impossible.
Fe's get self-glorification and self-fulfillment from helping others...from giving of themselves in the enablement of others.

In all honesty, it's all vanity. I feel no better after a big project is completed than I did during the planning stages. I imagine it's the same for Fe users and their projects to help (feed, clothe, etc.) others.

In the end, our recalcitrant and unwavering belief that we will improve our self-worth is what drives us to keep trying...and failing.

It's analogous to why we over-indulge in things. The high doesn't last and you always go back for the high. So, ultimately, we're born addicted to success and never truly achieve it. We 'need' success (however we define it) as much as we need air or food.


----------



## moonlight_echo (May 15, 2011)

I struggle over this constantly. Life can so often seem empty and meaningless.

We're born, we live, we (possibly) create additional life, we die. When I step back and look at all of it, I wonder why this is in the first place. I know there's the 'circle of life' and that we're ever-evolving, but why? What is the purpose behind the great struggle of existence? 

In the end we're stardust, and maybe that's where the closest thing to an answer lies. We're as much a part of the universe as the stars themselves. For a moment we burn brightly, only to burn out.

I consider myself spiritual in that I feel we _are_ connected to the universe and everything in it, but I don't believe in any higher power or gods. If anything there's an energy of life that weaves through all of us while we do exist here in this world that leaves us clawing for an answer. Any answer.... But religion is one I can't turn to.


----------



## cantstopthinking (Aug 13, 2011)

Popinjay said:


> Te's get self-glorification and self-fulfillment from logical accomplishment...from getting complex things done...from achievement of the difficult or seemingly impossible.
> Fe's get self-glorification and self-fulfillment from helping others...from giving of themselves in the enablement of others.
> 
> *In all honesty, it's all vanity. I feel no better after a big project is completed than I did during the planning stages. *I imagine it's the same for Fe users and their projects to help (feed, clothe, etc.) others.
> ...


Ditto repost !! Totally agree... that's what I was debating with my friend... made her think long and hard... She mentioned contention in joy, albeit only during meditation when there's inner peace... That itself is an addiction. Addiction to joy, contention...


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

cantstopthinking said:


> Ditto repost !! Totally agree... that's what I was debating with my friend... made her think long and hard... She mentioned contention in joy, albeit only during meditation when there's inner peace... That itself is an addiction. Addiction to joy, contention...


In a way, Te and Fe users are both problem solvers, but once problems are solved, it's like, "Now what?" We feel useless and meaningless until something goes wrong so we can fix it...and feel useless and meaningless again. Judgers have a harder time just existing...perceivers have it easier in that regard.


----------



## 2fast4u2 (Oct 3, 2011)

why? Its one of two things.

God is a sick bastard.

-OR-

We are the inherent offspring of a natural progression that seems to defy all odds, yet makes perfect sense. By that I mean, big bang, accretion, so on and yada who cares, I dont like to think we are a result of an inevitability, but it makes the most sense.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

To know Christ and make him known.




...and to support and promote capitalism and laissez faire economic doctrines. Milton Friedman ftw!


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

I don't know, I just think some things we're just not capable of understanding. Somehow this is seen as a cop-out by many. Other species aren't anywhere near our level of intellect, they can't grasp things we so easily understand. You can't imagine what it's like to be smarter. But if you were even 2x smarter than you are now you'd be incredibly more perceptive and many things would be too easy to understand. That's what I think, we're just not at that level yet. If we were life would change drastically I believe. We'd have different obstacles to overcome and ones that are no longer a challenge.


----------



## Mephi (Jun 10, 2015)

I did ask this myself a few times but i thought the question was kind of silly. i think rick and morty might of hit the nail on the head for me on this one: "Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. We're all going to die. Come watch TV?" 

I guess to some that'd be depressing but for me it's freeing. There are pros and cons to having a purpose and not having one. i guess i always saw a purpose/fate as an outside authority pointing it's finger at me saying, "do this for me." I don't mind not having that. I'm perfectly capable of pointing the finger at myself and creating my own meaning as the authority in my own life.


----------



## zekzar (Jul 9, 2017)

Here's the thing.
Millions and millions of people have died without a proper answer to their "meaning of life." I don't find myself "worthy" of finding an actual meaning to life for myself or anyone around me, dead or alive. We're all human; we're all the same. Whether or not we're here to serve a purpose is irrelevant. If we were given an actual meaning by the universe, I think we'd know by now.
Which begs the question: if we were meant to know our purpose, why don't we?
It's funny that some people think they're important enough to give other people's lives a meaning.
I won't say that you definitely do not have a meaning in life, but I will say this:
Life is fragile. It can end at any given moment, unexpectedly, without a warning. Sometimes without a trace.
I don't believe it should be whether or not you think you have a purpose here.
I think it's just important that you ARE here. By an extremely small chance, you're here, and that's incredible.
What you plan to do with your life is up to you and no one else.

This "answer" satisfies me.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

I think we're here because chance beat the odds.


----------



## Killstead (Jun 12, 2018)

We exist for 3 reasons:

1. To imbue meaning to an inherently meaningless world.

2. For the cosmos to know itself.

3. To suffer.


----------



## Innovation Complex (Jun 19, 2018)

In my humble opinion of said "Universe", I would say that the meaning of life is subject to an individuals experience of the world, their understanding of the world around them, and the understanding of their connection to said world.

I believe that the meaning of MY life is to be happy. I wish only to die happy, knowing I made steps throughout it to better myself. If I am able to touch others and leave a lasting impression on them, be it good or bad, I will die happily.

Although most of the time, we do not get to know what the world "took in" from our existence, and so, knowing my days are numbered, I choose to live with enthusiasm and excitement, almost childlike at times. I never shy away from showing what truly excites me, and the thought of someone disliking what I do EXCITES me to a level I have difficulty describing.

This thought is truly best explored when under the influence of a, ahem, natural hallucinogen. I kid you not, you will see the meaning of this world and your place in it in one night of exploration.


----------



## Vain (Dec 25, 2016)

According to some definitions of existence, we don't exist.
And maybe it's easier to do not.
Anyway, it is difficult for me to explain my POV in words since I see an answer in a very weird way. Not a feeling, something else.

Plus, I tend to make things complicated every time I think about it and say: "I like to think that I'm thinking because it makes me feel that I feel."


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Why do we exist ??? Simple question, a lifetime of doubt*


This Q assumes we exist. Okay. I'll take that premise.

I have a few answers for my existence. I can't speak for you. First I note I am right here. I take that note with a purpose of moving on to the next signpost. I have in mind to a lessor degree signposts beyond that, but they don't get clarified until I get to preceding signposts. I can live with that. 

Doubt? Of course I have doubts, but those are further out. The more I'm aware of where I stand right now the easier it is to see with a higher probability the next signpost.

Next question please.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

*Probably not very well written, but anyhow...*

The reason for human existence as a whole is unknown, in terms of a scientific view. The reason our existence in terms of our own opinions is very subject. Why we exists as individuals is also subjective to some extent too. Since the OP seems to be referring to existence in terms of the personal view of the matter, I will answer my own opinion of my own reasons of existence.

I have asked this question plenty of times before, since I was in primary school. I had already came to the realization that I only exist to carry on my genetic legacy(which the whole entire point of all of life's biotic beings). Technically speaking, my only reason to exists is to have offspring, so that my families genetics from our earliest ancestors, lives on. In terms of a more personal view though, my existence is out of the purpose of my mother and father wanting a child to raise. Their motives were likely out of wanting to create a happy family of their own(which failed miserably on all levels). The only reason I am here with these thought capabilities(which sadly are not extraordinary) is because I was lucky enough to be born a human(in some other parallel universe out there, I may of been born a mosquito), that mixed in with my genetics and how I was raised.

I dislike my existence and would have preferred never being born, especially considering the fact that my parents couldn't even afford to move out of my grandparents basement when I was born, but here I am. All because of how greedy my parents are(if only they had brought out the birth control and condoms, but noooo…). I have been miserable for most of my life and still am to this day. They had to be selfish…

The last question depends on context(I think, because it is worded very poorly). In terms of giving 18 years of your life to raise a child can be a selfless cause with selfish motives, though only in the context that they had already prepared themselves for this, are living in a good situation economically, are nice to the child, etc, but if they decided to have a child because they wanted one, despite their current situation meaning they cannot raise one in a good environment, afford to have one, use lazy parenting tactics on them(such as spanking, threatening, etc), have not properly prepared to have a child, etc(like my parents), then I would say that they are plain off selfish. But in the end, in both cases the agenda is motivated by selfishness, but the agenda itself does involve at least some degree of selflessness(depending on context).

In the end, my existence has no real meaning(in terms of my own reasons of exists, that happens to not involve the reason of my existence in terms of others desires, but rather my own values and thoughts). People who act as though they exist due to them being destined for something or for an actual purpose in life make me laugh. Especially my mother, who happens to be one of them. I still remember her explaining that I am “destined for greatness” and that very people(including my father, as she claims) are destined to fail. Hearing this as a child made me both annoyed and amused at the same time, because if how idiotic it sounded.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

We exist because nature launched an abomination into the universe with the evolution of consciousness. A great blunder which can only be corrected by the annihilation of our species, and which is responsible for indescribable tumult on this planet.

We continue to exist because our biology is excellent at giving us reasons to continue existing, and even better at blinding us from the fact that those reasons are incredibly stupid.

Once you clear all of the answers people give to the question of 'why we exist?' like, "God." "For my personal growth" "To continue the species" "To have fun" you eventually reach the real answer that our ego never wants us to accept as true: "If I don't continue to exist then I will be dead, and I am *terrified* of death."

We have no good reason to continue living but we have a huge reason to not die: Terror.
That is all life is, terror management. From one moment to the next we are focused entirely on not realizing or thinking about the fact that all of this destruction, death, tumult and torment is meaningless and one day we will all be dragged with screams of horror out of existence.

We don't have to be afraid of death if God is going to whisk us up into the clouds to live forever once our mangled corpses hit the floor. 
We have less reason to be afraid of death if all of our years of blood, sweat and toil will leave us a grand legacy here on Earth. 
We have no reason to be afraid of death if we are too distracted by the politics of our nation, the gossip of our workplace, or the injustice of society to ever think about death.

Eventually and finally, we all stand stark naked before the mirror of non-existence and see the empty skull inside smiling back at us. We will have a sense that there is someone in there, an emotional being with true purpose and divine spirit, but there is no one there - only the victim of an abomination created without care by nature. 

You may survive long enough to live a life free of any major trauma, but you will not survive your survival.
There is nothing to be done about the state in which we find ourselves. 

Go insane and move into a mental hospital, retreat back into your distractions, or prematurely cut your own strings and fall down before the puppet master returns to cut them for you. Whatever your choice, it does not matter.

There is no inherent meaning, no self defined meaning, no naturalistic meaning. To say that there is meaning is to say that there is a good reason for all of this, there can be no greater way to trivialize suffering than that:

- More than fifteen million people are thought to have died from natural disasters in the last 1,000 years, 
- Approximately 20,000 people die every day from hunger, 
- An estimated 840 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, 
- Between 541 CE and 1912, it is estimated that over 102 million people succumbed to plague, 
- The 1918 influenza epidemic killed 50 million people, 
- 11 million people die every year from infectious diseases, 
- Malignant neoplasms take more than a further 7 million lives each year, 
- Approximately 3.5 million people die every year in accidents, 
- Approximately 56.5 million people died in 2001, that is more than 107 people per minute, 
- Before the twentieth century over 133 million people were killed in mass killings, 
- In the first 88 years of the twentieth century 170 million (and possibly as many as 360 million) people were shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hanged, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad of ways the human imagination can envision.
- There were 1.6 million conflict-related deaths in the sixteenth century, 6.1 million in the seventeenth century, 7 million in the eighteenth, 19.4 million in the nineteenth, and 109.7 million in the twentieth, 
- War-related injuries led to 310,000 deaths in 2000, 
- About 40 million children are maltreated each year, 
- 815,000 people are thought to have committed suicide in 2000 
- It is estimated that someone commits suicide every 40 seconds, (more than 800,000 people per year).

The suffering truly is not worth this. Nothing can be worth this.

“Man beholds the earth, and it is breathing like a great lung; whenever it exhales, delightful life swarms from all its pores and reaches out toward the sun, but when it inhales, a moan of rupture passes through the multitude, and corpses whip the ground like bouts of hail.” 
- Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> We exist because nature launched an abomination into the universe with the evolution of consciousness. A great blunder which can only be corrected by the annihilation of our species, and which is responsible for indescribable tumult on this planet.
> 
> We continue to exist because our biology is excellent at giving us reasons to continue existing, and even better at blinding us from the fact that those reasons are incredibly stupid.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe there is a bias? While one is alive, they are living. If life in its natural state were miserable I would think it wouldn't have gotten very far. People have lived long enough (a generation) to reproduce and therefore must have lived with a degree of comfortable safety free from the terror you speak of. 

To talk so much of death is to look at the glass 95 percent empty. After all,
*“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”*

― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe there is a bias? While one is alive, they are living. If life in its natural state were miserable I would think it wouldn't have gotten very far. People have lived long enough (a generation) to reproduce and therefore must have lived with a degree of comfortable safety free from the terror you speak of.
> 
> To talk so much of death is to look at the glass 95 percent empty. After all,
> *“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”*
> ...


You're right, except we don't live life in its natural state. We live life wrapped in layers upon layers of delusion.
Peter Wessel Zapffe identified four methods by which we delude ourselves into not experiencing life as it truly is.

Isolation, distraction, anchoring and sublimation.

Isolation - Although we may know all about the dire facts of being alive, we relegate these facts to a back room in our mind and rarely, if ever, enter to be molested by them.

Distraction - The most widely employed trick, we use just about anything to distract us from the facts of life. Video games, music, movies, the foreign policy of a certain government, a cataclysmic event in a remote country. We do this because we subconsciously want to believe that it is better to kill time than to kill oneself.

Anchoring - In order to forget about these facts, or avoid learning of them in the first place, we put our lives in the hands of one or more institutions. God, religion, our country, our families, etc. which inebriate us with a sense of being safe from the jaws of non-existence.

Sublimation - The least used of all four. This is used by those who make horror movies, write horror stories, or create nonfiction about the horror of life. We create an artificial version of the horrors of life and place the creation at arms length from ourselves, acknowledging its existence, but keeping it far away and fun enough to not cause us to fall into terror.

"Man knows, which is why he is always two: his life, and his knowing."
- Carlo Michelstaedter


We do not want to know that we are hunks of spoiling flesh, and yet we do know, and it is this knowledge that we try with every waking moment to forget or salve.

It is also difficult to say that because one group of people in one area managed to live their lives relatively free from terror, hundreds of others did not. 
Even if 95% of this species recognized that life is an abomination and should not continue, the 5% could still ensure that this view does not come to pass.

The major bias of our species is towards optimism. The future will be great, space travel will be wonderful and solve all of our problems.
The billions of mangled corpses will serve their purpose as a foundation for this possible future whether they like it or not.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> You're right, except we don't live life in its natural state. We live life wrapped in layers upon layers of delusion.
> Peter Wessel Zapffe identified four methods by which we delude ourselves into not experiencing life as it truly is.
> 
> Isolation, distraction, anchoring and sublimation.
> ...


What would "life in its natural state be"? Does that mean one should know and be aware of all that is going on ... in and beyond one's immediate neighborhood? I don't try to be omniscient or omni-aware. I don't need to do that to live on. Sure we can go to any of those four states to live. I'll buy that we live there and imagine that traveling the map that our experienced brain has is not real life, but isn't that close enough? We live reality and then record it as our experience and then play with that experience plus new realities. We use our remembered experiences to avoid as best we can the horrors you speak of.




> "Man knows, which is why he is always two: his life, and his knowing."
> - Carlo Michelstaedter


It's a combo: experiences of the past plus here and now.



> We do not want to know that we are hunks of spoiling flesh, and yet we do know, and it is this knowledge that we try with every waking moment to forget or salve.


We are that flesh, but I can't be constantly occupied with experiencing that. That would be too self-centered to be incessantly aware of what is going on around immediate me. Man, unlike the lower animals, can contemplate the infinite. Man can see the destruction going on in ... say inside the sun ... and be grateful that very destroyer gives life.




> It is also difficult to say that because one group of people in one area managed to live their lives relatively free from terror, hundreds of others did not.
> Even if 95% of this species recognized that life is an abomination and should not continue, the 5% could still ensure that this view does not come to pass.


You mean the 5% should do something? A lot of them do. I'm not sure that 95% abomination is the correct number. What about 35%?




> The major bias of our species is towards optimism. The future will be great, space travel will be wonderful and solve all of our problems.
> The billions of mangled corpses will serve their purpose as a foundation for this possible future whether they like it or not.


Here is the "glass is half full again." If one has to choose how to live, why not choose optimism? Why not use that optimism to create more life and let that process aim for well-being? Watching death is not a neutral or better way to live. Aim for life. Create more life and defeat death. Never mind a future we aren't going to experience. Death is a non-operation. Life is an operation. If dying is also an operation, why dwell on that? Instead laugh at it if you can by living ... until you no longer can.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> What would "life in its natural state be"? Does that mean one should know and be aware of all that is going on ... in and beyond one's immediate neighborhood? I don't try to be omniscient or omni-aware. I don't need to do that to live on. Sure we can go to any of those four states to live. I'll buy that we live there and imagine that traveling the map that our experienced brain has is not real life, but isn't that close enough? We live reality and then record it as our experience and then play with that experience plus new realities. We use our remembered experiences to avoid as best we can the horrors you speak of.


Life in its natural state is suffering, consumption, hunger, mutilation and death on a massive scale.

Does my view state that you should be aware of this? If the awareness means that you will make changes in your life to help reduce suffering, say by not procreating for instance, then yes. The awareness of what is going on outside your own neighborhood is key.

If the awareness means that you know but do nothing about it, isolate it, and occasionally remember it, then no. I don't think it matters if you know or not.

For any other topic, someone being content with only knowing and/or caring enough to act based only on what is going on in their own backyard would be called out as willful ignorance. I don't want to do that but I see no other way to put this. 

If you are content living your life with the vague knowledge that elsewhere in the world people are enduring suffering on a scale that you can't really imagine and you feel that it is worth it so that you can play tennis on Saturdays then you are simply fitting in with the rest of this species.



> I don't need to do that to live on.


That's very much the point though. People can't live on with it, which is why their biology does all the work for them to keep this out of their minds.



> It's a combo: experiences of the past plus here and now.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, even in reference to the quote I posted.



> We are that flesh, but I can't be constantly occupied with experiencing that. That would be too self-centered to be incessantly aware of what is going on around immediate me. Man, unlike the lower animals, can contemplate the infinite. Man can see the destruction going on in ... say inside the sun ... and be grateful that very destroyer gives life.


If you did experience yourself as nothing more than a hunk of spoiling flesh then you would not be you. 
A human can't experience their lack of a self, there is always a sense of self there in one form or another. The sense of self is what we feel the need to protect and it is ingrained in our biology. This is what I mean when I say, "We continue to exist because our biology is excellent at giving us reasons to continue existing."

The self is just another reason.

What is so compelling about the infinite, what makes our ability to look at the sun and think "wow" worth the billions of deaths this planet has been host to?
Saying that the sun gives life to the Earth is no different to saying that the sun gives suffering to the Earth. The sun should go dark and let the Earth go dark after it.



> You mean the 5% should do something? A lot of them do. I'm not sure that 95% abomination is the correct number. What about 35%?


I think you've misunderstood what I meant, either that or I misunderstood what you meant and responded with a misunderstanding.

Let me try to clarify and you can correct me if I go wrong somewhere.

Without straw-manning you hopefully, it seemed that you were saying that we must be capable of living life free from the terror that I describe because at least one generation did do this, which is why we are all here. If this generation was incapable of living life free from the terrors then we would not be here because they would not have made the decision to reproduce.

To this I replied with the methods by which we manage terror in order to continue the species but added an extra argument which was meant to be more illustrative of a point than reflective of reality using two statistics.

My point was that even if 95% of the different groups of people on this planet in one generation all came to the conclusion that life is not worth living and decided not to reproduce and let the species die out, the 5% who decided that life was worth living and decided to reproduce would make it so that the species would not die out. This 5% could be stupid or just incredibly prone to acts which would lead to reproduction, but for whatever reason the species would continue.



> Here is the "glass is half full again." If one has to choose how to live, why not choose optimism? Why not use that optimism to create more life and let that process aim for well-being? Watching death is not a neutral or better way to live. Aim for life. Create more life and defeat death. Never mind a future we aren't going to experience. Death is a non-operation. Life is an operation. If dying is also an operation, why dwell on that? Instead laugh at it if you can by living ... until you no longer can.


You need to explain what is so good about living before we can say that it is worth tearing someone from non-existence and forcing them to be a part of this game.

Life is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of death in this world.
Food is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not eating.
Water is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not drinking.

If we had knowledge of neither food nor starvation then there would be no problem whatsoever. 
You don't view it as an ethical harm that someone hasn't been brought into existence, and if you do then you should be donating to a sperm bank every single day of your life.

Here is what it comes down to for me:

Even if I did choose to believe that life is great and worth living I would never presume to make that choice for another person and that is exactly what I would be doing if I decided to procreate.

_*"For optimists, human life never needs justification, no matter how much hurt piles up, because they can always tell themselves that things will get better. For pessimists, there is no amount of happiness—should such a thing as happiness even obtain for human beings except as a misconception—that can compensate us for life’s hurt."*_ *- Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against The Human Race*

Laugh at life by living. You're going down the Camus route of philosophy and are asking me to be like Sisyphus.
Sisyphus grinned while he was rolling the stone because he was gratifying himself and sticking a middle finger up to the Universe. This is the idea of heroic pessimism. 

The problem is that once you get past the point in Pessimistic philosophy where you realize that the 'self' is just an illusion created by your biology as a last ditch effort to keep you alive and pushing the species forward, as it does successfully with Sisyphus, you can't delude yourself into believing that you are rolling the stone as a middle finger to the Universe.

You are rolling the stone and smiling because the idea that your smile means something to you is the last line of defense to keep you alive.

After that there is nothing, you let the stone roll over you.

But the strongest reason for why I don't simply allow this to happen to me and choose optimism is because I have apparently been programmed to care strongly about the truth, regardless of what effects my beliefs have on myself or others. Pessimism without compromise is a hard pill to swallow.

I apologize if I come across as quite judgmental, it's not my intention, it's just that I have had this conversation so many times and I've realized that compromising the strength of any argument I make to make the person I am speaking with feel better is not a very good tactic.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first thing I want to say is your first post here, #47 , contained statistics about suffering and death. What is missing is stats on living and life. The question posed in this thread 


 Why do we exist ??? Simple question, a lifetime of doubt 
is a little misleading. "Why do we exist?" implies a static state as if we should look at life and say, what have we? That is not life. Life moves. What if we rephrase and say:
*How do we live???, Simple Q a lifetime of action.*

I'll answer that. We live life to do stuff and we don't always ask why because we are too complex to know ourselves. Instead we have desires we want to carry out. As long as we have these desires, we don't want to die because if we die, we can't carry them out. Desires are of multiple kinds. They reach out to various positions in the future.

I'll give a simple example but not bother to explain it. In the news just now is a group of boys trapped in a cave in Tailand. https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/...e/news-story/08cd229409cb565a2bb7f919e8ced69c

This news is all over the world though not everyone, including you, may be interested. It's a story people are interested in even though THEY are not or were not trapped themselves in this cave. It's a story about the suffering and possible death you talk about. People who follow this story do not want to die. They want to live to find out how the story resolves itself. They do that because things like this are connected with their own lives although not specifically in this way. <-- this in a nutshell tells why people want to live.

I didn't respond specifically to your post. I have other posts and things to do before I get to that. Let me know if I'm tardy.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> The first thing I want to say is your first post here, #47 , contained statistics about suffering and death. What is missing is stats on living and life. The question posed in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wrote a response to this and I'm almost certain that you did read it, even if you haven't responded yet. 

I'm sorry for now taking away your reason to respond to what I said, but I have, for some reason, suddenly come to the realization that I am truly and deeply tired of having this conversation and I want to try to move past these beliefs. At the end of the day it is pointless to look deeply at the why's of life if it means ignoring the how's of life.

If I had the opportunity to rewind time and re-state my first response to this topic, I would say simply that the purpose of life, for me, is to make people happy and improve quality of life in any way possible. 

Exposing people to an ideology which would, if convinced by it, cause them to become - in the best case scenario - sad and - in the worst case scenario - depressed is not what I want to be doing with my time and I know that responding to such a dull and childish ideology is not how you want to spend your time either.

So, I hope you have a good day and I'll see you around.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Just for intermezzo










Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

The _why _is answered through self-determination. I don't care about the why do _we _exist, but rather the why do _I _exist and answer it for myself. 

There is no other, better answer imo.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> I wrote a response to this and I'm almost certain that you did read it, even if you haven't responded yet.
> 
> I'm sorry for now taking away your reason to respond to what I said, but I have, for some reason, suddenly come to the realization that I am truly and deeply tired of having this conversation and I want to try to move past these beliefs. At the end of the day it is pointless to look deeply at the why's of life if it means ignoring the how's of life.
> 
> ...


Hey. I didn't mean to give impression I was being dismissive of your theme. I find it very interesting and a challenge. It's just that I'm doing a lot of stuff ... too much probably ... and had to make a trip today which took all day. I don't treat what you said as "beliefs" but as questions. They are valid as there is plenty of misery in the world. Not childish ideology. Not pointless to discuss it as long as the counter argument is presented. And I'm not very good at that. I'm okay at summarizing though. 

As I think I said, people want to live because they have a lot on their mind to do. They are aware of the existence of misery but a lot of their time is spent finding ways to keep it at bay. A simple example is starvation is misery. People who are able will seek out good food, find ways to best prepare it, get together with others and enjoy themselves. This way though they know starvation is possible, they place it in the background making it unnecessary to face. How's that for a counter argument? Now I will look at your previous post and try to keep that in mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Life in its natural state is suffering, consumption, hunger, mutilation and death on a massive scale.
Life in its natural state is facing that, fighting that, overcoming it, and prevailing as much as possible.

Does my view state that you should be aware of this? If the awareness means that you will make changes in your life to help reduce suffering, say by not procreating for instance, then yes. The awareness of what is going on outside your own neighborhood is key.
Procreating can be a lot of fun if one has the resources (I have no children though for other reasons). For one, one gets to review their own childhood and possibly improve on one's mistakes.


If the awareness means that you know but do nothing about it, isolate it, and occasionally remember it, then no. I don't think it matters if you know or not.
Knowledge is not there to do nothing. Knowledge is there in case you either need it or want to build something new.


For any other topic, someone being content with only knowing and/or caring enough to act based only on what is going on in their own backyard would be called out as willful ignorance. I don't want to do that but I see no other way to put this. 
Some believe getting one's own backyard in order comes first. Having done something with that, we branch out to incorporate life outside bringing it inside.

If you are content living your life with the vague knowledge that elsewhere in the world people are enduring suffering on a scale that you can't really imagine and you feel that it is worth it so that you can play tennis on Saturdays then you are simply fitting in with the rest of this species.
A person happy by being able to enjoy themselves is better equipped to go out and help others. 


That's very much the point though. People can't live on with it, which is why their biology does all the work for them to keep this out of their minds.
(I've forgotten what I said.) I like to look at bad situations and treat them as problems to solve. I like to address problems as you can see. A doctor, for example, looks at health problems without getting upset themselves.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, even in reference to the quote I posted.
One uses acquired knowledge from the past now in the present. They work together, not separately.


If you did experience yourself as nothing more than a hunk of spoiling flesh then you would not be you. 
A human can't experience their lack of a self, there is always a sense of self there in one form or another. The sense of self is what we feel the need to protect and it is ingrained in our biology. This is what I mean when I say, "We continue to exist because our biology is excellent at giving us reasons to continue existing."
Okay.

The self is just another reason.



> What is so compelling about the infinite, what makes our ability to look at the sun and think "wow" worth the billions of deaths this planet has been host to?
> Saying that the sun gives life to the Earth is no different to saying that the sun gives suffering to the Earth. The sun should go dark and let the Earth go dark after it.


Some people are scientists and love to learn about our universe. It's fun. They are aware power can destroy but need not let their emotions overcome them.


I think you've misunderstood what I meant, either that or I misunderstood what you meant and responded with a misunderstanding.

Let me try to clarify and you can correct me if I go wrong somewhere.

Without straw-manning you hopefully, it seemed that you were saying that we must be capable of living life free from the terror that I describe because at least one generation did do this, which is why we are all here. If this generation was incapable of living life free from the terrors then we would not be here because they would not have made the decision to reproduce.

To this I replied with the methods by which we manage terror in order to continue the species but added an extra argument which was meant to be more illustrative of a point than reflective of reality using two statistics.

My point was that even if 95% of the different groups of people on this planet in one generation all came to the conclusion that life is not worth living and decided not to reproduce and let the species die out, the 5% who decided that life was worth living and decided to reproduce would make it so that the species would not die out. This 5% could be stupid or just incredibly prone to acts which would lead to reproduction, but for whatever reason the species would continue.
I read this as an invalid hypothesis. 95% of us want to go on living and most reproduce. Anyway if only 5% wanted to live, I'm not sure that would be enough for the species to survive. That is another topic.


You need to explain what is so good about living before we can say that it is worth tearing someone from non-existence and forcing them to be a part of this game.
What is good about living is the myriad things we want to do, from getting the next meal to making a better world.



Life is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of death in this world.
Food is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not eating.
Water is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not drinking.
No. The positives keep us alive.


to be continued ...


Continuing ...
If we had knowledge of neither food nor starvation then there would be no problem whatsoever. 
You don't view it as an ethical harm that someone hasn't been brought into existence, and if you do then you should be donating to a sperm bank every single day of your life.
Benefits and liabilities need to be brought into balance.




Here is what it comes down to for me:

Even if I did choose to believe that life is great and worth living I would never presume to make that choice for another person and that is exactly what I would be doing if I decided to procreate.
There is truth in that. One cannot force another to be happy. But one can provide a nourishing environment.

_*"For optimists, human life never needs justification, no matter how much hurt piles up, because they can always tell themselves that things will get better. For pessimists, there is no amount of happiness—should such a thing as happiness even obtain for human beings except as a misconception—that can compensate us for life’s hurt."*_ *- Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against The Human Race
*I didn't know there was such a thing as a hard and fast either.


Laugh at life by living. You're going down the Camus route of philosophy and are asking me to be like Sisyphus.
Sisyphus grinned while he was rolling the stone because he was gratifying himself and sticking a middle finger up to the Universe. This is the idea of heroic pessimism. 
Mr. Sisyphus could have taken a class in anger management ... or maybe an art class where he would be more successful.


The problem is that once you get past the point in Pessimistic philosophy where you realize that the 'self' is just an illusion created by your biology as a last ditch effort to keep you alive and pushing the species forward, as it does successfully with Sisyphus, you can't delude yourself into believing that you are rolling the stone as a middle finger to the Universe.
 I'm not sure I would pick Sissypus as my role model. He wasn't "the master of his fate nor the captain of his soul."


You are rolling the stone and smiling because the idea that your smile means something to you is the last line of defense to keep you alive.
I don't know if you have gone away and aren't reading this, but that doesn't make this writing futile. I got to question your logic.

After that there is nothing, you let the stone roll over you.
If a project isn't going to make progress, abandon it? 

But the strongest reason for why I don't simply allow this to happen to me and choose optimism is because I have apparently been programmed to care strongly about the truth, regardless of what effects my beliefs have on myself or others. Pessimism without compromise is a hard pill to swallow.
I commend you for seeking the truth as long as you are willing to find a rounded truth and one that benefits.

I apologize if I come across as quite judgmental, it's not my intention, it's just that I have had this conversation so many times and I've realized that compromising the strength of any argument I make to make the person I am speaking with feel better is not a very good tactic.
@*ProfessorNobody. *No apology necessary. You are not affecting my feeling except I am glad to talk to you and hope to again. If not, that's okay.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

OK, I guess we can carry on with this. Hopefully you can convince me that I'm wrong.



BigApplePi said:


> Life in its natural state is suffering, consumption, hunger, mutilation and death on a massive scale.
> Life in its natural state is facing that, fighting that, overcoming it, and prevailing as much as possible.


In order to justify the imposition of suffering on someone there needs to be a point. We disagree that there is a point to prevailing, other than having a moment of pleasure before the cycle begins again - not worth it in my opinion.



> Does my view state that you should be aware of this? If the awareness means that you will make changes in your life to help reduce suffering, say by not procreating for instance, then yes. The awareness of what is going on outside your own neighborhood is key.
> Procreating can be a lot of fun if one has the resources (I have no children though for other reasons). For one, one gets to review their own childhood and possibly improve on one's mistakes.


The reason you're giving here for having a child is no different than saying you are going to conduct an experiment.
You're going to play Frankenstein and stitch together your own person so that you can do what? Observe and try to intervene while they painstakingly try and fail to avoid suffering and occasionally have moments where they aren't worried about something, suffering from an illness, grieving a dead relative or friend, or watching in horror while some tragedy unfolds on the other side of the world. 

OR if the child isn't living in a cushy first world country like you and I likely are (you have a computer or phone and are educated so you must be winning in some way) then the likelihood for the child to experience all of these things goes up massively and they are more likely to be directly involved in said disaster unfolding somewhere in the world.

Not to mention that your child might not grow up to be a good person. Your child might grow up to be a little sociopath who imposes pain and suffering on others.

All so that you can try to do the 'raising a child' thing better than your parents did?

None of this is worth the gamble.



> If the awareness means that you know but do nothing about it, isolate it, and occasionally remember it, then no. I don't think it matters if you know or not.
> Knowledge is not there to do nothing. Knowledge is there in case you either need it or want to build something new.


Plenty of people do absolutely nothing with extremely important knowledge. People know that children die by the thousands every year from malaria in Africa. Do people act on that knowledge and donate to charitable organisation to provide malaria nets and treatment? No.

Having knowledge and not acting on it is as good as not having the knowledge.



> For any other topic, someone being content with only knowing and/or caring enough to act based only on what is going on in their own backyard would be called out as willful ignorance. I don't want to do that but I see no other way to put this.
> Some believe getting one's own backyard in order comes first. Having done something with that, we branch out to incorporate life outside bringing it inside.


At what point does your own backyard become 'in order?'
What amount of pointless deaths and number of people uselessly suffering is acceptable? 

What is the homeless rate when your own backyard is 'in order.' Or the death rate from cancer? Child mortality rate? Suicide rate?

When is a first world country going to say, 'OK, we're good enough now, let's focus on those Africans.'



> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, even in reference to the quote I posted.
> One uses acquired knowledge from the past now in the present. They work together, not separately.


I can agree with that, but I don't see how that is an argument that life is worth living.
We build on prior knowledge to create new things to help us. That doesn't tell me why it is worth it.



> _Some people are scientists and love to learn about our universe. It's fun. They are aware power can destroy but need not let their emotions overcome them._





> You need to explain what is so good about living before we can say that it is worth tearing someone from non-existence and forcing them to be a part of this game.
> What is good about living is the myriad things we want to do, from getting the next meal to making a better world.


They love to learn about the Universe because they are easily distracted by meaningless things. Why does it matter what the closest galaxy to ours is? Or how many rotations a neutron star can do per second?

Nobody should feel like they can impose unimaginable suffering on a person because they think stars are cool and you can generalize this across any other hobby that people might take up to kill time.

Even if you take what I consider to be the most important and praise-worthy thing a person can do - help other people who are suffering - this is still just cleaning up a mess that could be avoided if people realized that suffering is the only thing which holds any true value.

Everything that can make you feel pleasure is dependent on your psychology, it depends on how your brain is wired and differs from person to person. 
Pain and suffering are universal, the amateur stargazer and the professional chef are going to feel exactly the same if you stick an iron rod through their stomachs. They are both going to suffer unimaginably when they both get bone cancer and die.

Once people realize that the best thing we can do is avoid suffering by any means necessary then the world will become a better place because by any means necessary includes not procreating to create more things to suffer.



> I read this as an invalid hypothesis. 95% of us want to go on living and most reproduce. Anyway if only 5% wanted to live, I'm not sure that would be enough for the species to survive. That is another topic.


I agree it's another topic, we'll leave this to the side.



> _Life is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of death in this world._
> _Food is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not eating._
> _Water is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not drinking._
> _No. The positives keep us alive._


You aren't disagreeing with me here.
_'Food is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not eating. [Hunger and death]'

The positives may keep us alive but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
_


> If we had knowledge of neither food nor starvation then there would be no problem whatsoever.
> You don't view it as an ethical harm that someone hasn't been brought into existence, and if you do then you should be donating to a sperm bank every single day of your life.
> Benefits and liabilities need to be brought into balance.


Eating something because you are hungry isn't a benefit to neutral. It's a benefit to the liability of being hungry.
There is no balance. There are liabilities and the things we must do to avoid them. We only like doing these things because they make us avoid having to experience the liabilities.



> _Even if I did choose to believe that life is great and worth living I would never presume to make that choice for another person and that is exactly what I would be doing if I decided to procreate._
> _There is truth in that. One cannot force another to be happy. But one can provide a nourishing environment._


You can't shelter someone from getting cancer and dying. You can't shelter someone from getting mangled in a car crash, or starving to death in Ethiopia. You can be touched and your child can be touched, nobody is safe from suffering and no matter how hard you try or how much knowledge you gain you can never keep the wolves from the door. 

I didn't say you can't force someone to be happy. I am as happy as the average person and I still believe that life isn't worth it and I still can't say for someone else that life is worth it. 

Being happy or unhappy has nothing to do with it, it's whether or not you accept that suffering and the prevention of suffering matters more than anything else including your own personal happiness.



> _I'm not sure I would pick Sissypus as my role model. He wasn't "the master of his fate nor the captain of his soul._


I thought you would have known about the myth of Sisyphus and what Camus did with it in his philosophy because you mirrored it when you said laugh at life by living. 
I'm sure my point was clear to anyone who does know that story, but we'll move on.



> _You are rolling the stone and smiling because the idea that your smile means something to you is the last line of defense to keep you alive._
> _I got to question your logic._


Basically, you said laugh at life by living. I brought up the philosophy of Albert Camus who said the same thing.
He did this by using an ancient Greek story in which a man, Sisyphus, is sentenced by a God [I don't remember who or why] to roll a boulder up a mountain only to watch it roll back down again for eternity.

Albert Camus compared the rolling of the boulder to life. Life is a pointless chore but we have to imagine Sisyphus smiling as he rolls the boulder in defiance to the pointlessness because at least he would always have himself and his sense of humor. That couldn't be taken from him even though everything else was [by life.]

This seemed to be the point you were making when you said laugh at life by living.

In response I said that this doesn't work once you reach a certain point in philosophical pessimism and understanding of neurology because you know that the 'self' that Sisyphus was holding on to is not real. 

It is just an illusion and what is the point in holding onto an illusion?

That was my logic.



> _After that there is nothing, you let the stone roll over you._
> _If a project isn't going to make progress, abandon it?_


If the project has no goal, no discernible purpose, illusory benefits and involves the all too real suffering, pain and anguish of living beings? Yes. Abandon it as fast as you possibly can.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> OK, I guess we can carry on with this. Hopefully you can convince me that I'm wrong.


I'm glad you are willing to continue, but first I want to bring up a possible bias we both could have. Is it not true that if either of us is leading a miserable or happy life right now that can bias our outlook on everyone and everything? Somehow I don't want to convince you of anything directly. Isn't a lot of the answer to this quantitative rather than qualitative? Let's see.





> In order to justify the imposition of suffering on someone there needs to be a point. We disagree that there is a point to prevailing, other than having a moment of pleasure before the cycle begins again - not worth it in my opinion.


If I knew you better, I'd want to know your capabilities. I can prevail on many things because my current life is in order. (I'm retired from work.) Someone who lives at home dependent on their parents with no job, no degree and no ambition will find it a tough time to prevail on anything. 






> The reason you're giving here for having a child is no different than saying you are going to conduct an experiment.
> You're going to play Frankenstein and stitch together your own person so that you can do what? Observe and try to intervene while they painstakingly try and fail to avoid suffering and occasionally have moments where they aren't worried about something, suffering from an illness, grieving a dead relative or friend, or watching in horror while some tragedy unfolds on the other side of the world.
> 
> OR if the child isn't living in a cushy first world country like you and I likely are (you have a computer or phone and are educated so you must be winning in some way) then the likelihood for the child to experience all of these things goes up massively and they are more likely to be directly involved in said disaster unfolding somewhere in the world.
> ...


Saying it is not worth the gamble doesn't make it so. Naturally we don't want a child to grow into a sociopath. A rational person might, with their partner, decide what resources they have to start with and gamble they have enough to offer to have fun raising a successful child. I've seen many do that.

If one lives in a 3rd world country, they might not think ahead and come up with a child simply because one or both of the partners liked sex. Or if they are farmers, they might want lots of children to help with the farming. They don't take a morality outlook on misery. They hope children will overcome their labor shortage. It's economic.




> Plenty of people do absolutely nothing with extremely important knowledge. People know that children die by the thousands every year from malaria in Africa. Do people act on that knowledge and donate to charitable organisation to provide malaria nets and treatment? No.
> 
> Having knowledge and not acting on it is as good as not having the knowledge.


I have an essay in my mind of a "Theory of Understanding." One of the tools for understanding I call "distance." There is a distance between knowledge and action. Malaria in Africa is far away. Ebola is a lot closer. Knowledge is applied when we think it will affect us. People as a rule are not idealistic saints.





> At what point does your own backyard become 'in order?'
> What amount of pointless deaths and number of people uselessly suffering is acceptable?
> 
> What is the homeless rate when your own backyard is 'in order.' Or the death rate from cancer? Child mortality rate? Suicide rate?
> ...


As I was saying, not everyone is as idealistic as you and I. People are self-interested and preoccupied with their immediate surroundings. There are exceptions. When the island country of Haiti had a natural disaster a few years ago, there were big drives in the United States to send aid to help those people out. Sometimes there is a movement not just by individuals but by entire groups to help out.




> I can agree with that, but I don't see how that is an argument that life is worth living.
> We build on prior knowledge to create new things to help us. That doesn't tell me why it is worth it.


I alone can't convince you life is worth living. Partly you have to decide that for yourself. Look at others who do find life worth living. Ask why they do feel that way. If you keep looking at those who don't like life and you don't have the resources to do anything about it, you are going to identify with them. Let me ask you this: would you rather read a good novel or a bad one? A good movie or a bad one? I love a good movie. I walked away from a bad one. I planted a spring garden and am raising food. If I didn't tend the garden it wouldn't grow properly. Plants would die. Some will and I'll take note for next time.





> They love to learn about the Universe because they are easily distracted by meaningless things. Why does it matter what the closest galaxy to ours is? Or how many rotations a neutron star can do per second?
> 
> Nobody should feel like they can impose unimaginable suffering on a person because they think stars are cool and you can generalize this across any other hobby that people might take up to kill time.
> 
> ...


What kind of conclusion are you drawing here? One could say the same thing about pleasure and say there is so much pleasure to find in the world we should procreate a lot more so more will enjoy it.

As for scientists, we know there are many different personality types right here on this forum. A scientist could say, "To hell with ordinary things. The only thing worthwhile is to discover and I want to learn the mysteries of the universe."





> You aren't disagreeing with me here.
> _'Food is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not eating. [Hunger and death]'
> 
> The positives may keep us alive but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
> ...


Huh? The positives give us pleasure and a reason for living. Forget the negatives. I don't eat to get indigestion!





> You can't shelter someone from getting cancer and dying. You can't shelter someone from getting mangled in a car crash, or starving to death in Ethiopia. You can be touched and your child can be touched, nobody is safe from suffering and no matter how hard you try or how much knowledge you gain you can never keep the wolves from the door.


Earlier you talked about knowledge. Scientists and doctors are working on cancer. New cures are being discovered I just heard about last week. Car safety is regulated by the U.S. government who keeps a close watch on this. Yes to Ethiopia. Nothing can be done <-- is that what you believe?









> I didn't say you can't force someone to be happy. I am as happy as the average person and I still believe that life isn't worth it and I still can't say for someone else that life is worth it.
> 
> Being happy or unhappy has nothing to do with it, it's whether or not you accept that suffering and the prevention of suffering matters more than anything else including your own personal happiness.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I follow all that. Anyway I see Sisyphus as wasting his time. If Camus wants to be a pessimist, let him. He is not around to talk to. Anyone can feel helpless and angry and repeat futile things. If I felt that way I'd want out. I'd work at it until I found a way out. Screw Camus, lol.





> If the project has no goal, no discernible purpose, illusory benefits and involves the all too real suffering, pain and anguish of living beings? Yes. Abandon it as fast as you possibly can.


Agreed. Do something else. Are you a student? Employed? Ambitious or just wish to hang out?


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm glad you are willing to continue, but first I want to bring up a possible bias we both could have. Is it not true that if either of us is leading a miserable or happy life right now that can bias our outlook on everyone and everything? Somehow I don't want to convince you of anything directly. Isn't a lot of the answer to this quantitative rather than qualitative? Let's see.


This is moving more into psychology and I'm not as certain about this kind of stuff as I am about the ethical philosophy.
I don't believe that I am making this argument from a position of misery. I am not an incredibly happy person, but I have shelter, food, water, a good paying job for my age, I have been educated and have access to healthcare, I haven't been abused or bullied extensively throughout my life, I have never undergone any major trauma or loss either. If anything I should be the perfect candidate to stand on the Optimist side of this argument, and yet I maintain that life, in general, is an abomination.

I fail to see how psychology can come into this.



> If I knew you better, I'd want to know your capabilities. I can prevail on many things because my current life is in order. (I'm retired from work.) Someone who lives at home dependent on their parents with no job, no degree and no ambition will find it a tough time to prevail on anything.


I said that there is no point to prevailing. You are saying that you'd want to know my capabilities to see if I can prevail.

I don't see the connection. 

Yes, I prevailed when I was born into a first world country. I prevailed when I left High School with good enough grades to get me into the next level of education. I prevailed when I left that level of education and went into a job which gives me a good enough salary to live on.

Prevailing isn't the issue, it's whether or not prevailing to make my life easier and whether one can prevail or not justifies the continuance of this species. Just because a certain amount of people can and do prevail does not therefore mean that we are justified in continuing the species and creating more people who will or will not prevail.

The 'will prevails' don't matter to me because they are not suffering. The 'won't prevails' matter to me hugely because they are going to be the people who have to pay the price, a stupid price which would not need to be incurred if the 'will prevails' didn't say so.



> _The reason you're giving here for having a child is no different than saying you are going to conduct an experiment.
> You're going to play Frankenstein and stitch together your own person so that you can do what? Observe and try to intervene while they painstakingly try and fail to avoid suffering and occasionally have moments where they aren't worried about something, suffering from an illness, grieving a dead relative or friend, or watching in horror while some tragedy unfolds on the other side of the world.
> 
> OR if the child isn't living in a cushy first world country like you and I likely are (you have a computer or phone and are educated so you must be winning in some way) then the likelihood for the child to experience all of these things goes up massively and they are more likely to be directly involved in said disaster unfolding somewhere in the world.
> ...


1. You have seen many decide what resources they have and decide to gamble to have a child. The child gets lucky and grows up in a nice country with good healthcare and a bed to sleep in. That's fine. I am not denying that this happens.

2. My point is that a lot of the time the parents decide what resources they have and decide to gamble, and then the gamble goes horrifically wrong. The child grows up in abuse, the child gets cancer, the parents die in a car crash a year after the child is born, the child ends up with a genetic disorder and lives in suffering.

You are making the argument that scenario 1 justifies scenario 2 and I can't understand how you can make that case.



> _Plenty of people do absolutely nothing with extremely important knowledge. People know that children die by the thousands every year from malaria in Africa. Do people act on that knowledge and donate to charitable organisation to provide malaria nets and treatment? No.
> 
> Having knowledge and not acting on it is as good as not having the knowledge._
> 
> I have an essay in my mind of a "Theory of Understanding." One of the tools for understanding I call "distance." There is a distance between knowledge and action. Malaria in Africa is far away. Ebola is a lot closer. Knowledge is applied when we think it will affect us. People as a rule are not idealistic saints.


You're right. Humans as a rule are greedy, selfish, barbaric, cruel and occasionally do something to benefit another person [usually because it benefits them.]
Why do we deserve to continue to exist balanced on the corpses of billions?



> _At what point does your own backyard become 'in order?'
> What amount of pointless deaths and number of people uselessly suffering is acceptable?
> 
> What is the homeless rate when your own backyard is 'in order.' Or the death rate from cancer? Child mortality rate? Suicide rate?
> ...


There are nowhere near enough exceptions.



> _I can agree with that, but I don't see how that is an argument that life is worth living.
> We build on prior knowledge to create new things to help us. That doesn't tell me why it is worth it._
> 
> I alone can't convince you life is worth living. Partly you have to decide that for yourself. Look at others who do find life worth living. Ask why they do feel that way. If you keep looking at those who don't like life and you don't have the resources to do anything about it, you are going to identify with them. Let me ask you this: would you rather read a good novel or a bad one? A good movie or a bad one? I love a good movie. I walked away from a bad one. I planted a spring garden and am raising food. If I didn't tend the garden it wouldn't grow properly. Plants would die. Some will and I'll take note for next time.


I can't say anything other than you are seriously trivializing the suffering that people go through.

"If I didn't tend the garden it wouldn't grow properly. Plants would die. Some will and I'll take note for next time."
"If we don't make the world better it will continue to suffer. People would die. Some will and I'll take note for next time."

This is what the human race does. People die by the millions, and we think, "Woops, better hope that doesn't happen again any time soon, maybe a change in social policy could help?"
Your theory of 'distance' is exactly what is wrong with the human race.

60 Million people were wiped off the face of the Earth during world war 2. How high does that number need to get before you say, "That's too much. This is stupid and not at all worth it. Please stop the train."

How many plants in your garden need to die night after night after night for years before you say, "OK. I'm obviously terrible at gardening and should give up this whole endeavor." ?

If this^ argument doesn't convince you in any way or give you pause then I don't think there is anything else I could possibly say that will come close to convincing you of my view.




> _They love to learn about the Universe because they are easily distracted by meaningless things. Why does it matter what the closest galaxy to ours is? Or how many rotations a neutron star can do per second?
> 
> Nobody should feel like they can impose unimaginable suffering on a person because they think stars are cool and you can generalize this across any other hobby that people might take up to kill time.
> 
> ...


My conclusion is that there is a gaping chasm between the importance of gaining pleasure and preventing suffering.
There is an asymmetry between pleasure and pain which I feel I have already demonstrated.

If you had the choice of experiencing your greatest pleasure for a day but the price was that you had to suffer the worst pain for a day, would you do it?

If pleasure and pain are equal then you might as well flip a coin, if pleasure is more important than pain then you should say yes, if you live in the real world where your worst pain is always going to be worth avoiding more than your greatest pleasure is going to be worth experiencing then you will say no.

A scientist could say that the only thing worthwhile is to discover and learn the mysteries of the Universe and I would say that they are using the distraction method to manage their terror and are wasting their life on something which they have deluded themselves into believing is important, which is the only thing that everyone can do, including you and I.


> _Y__ou aren't disagreeing with me here.'Food is only good for us because we know about the negative consequences of not eating. [Hunger and death]'
> 
> The positives may keep us alive but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
> 
> ...


You seem to be saying that indigestion proves me wrong because you eat and it's a liability.
Which is the same as saying that indigestion is at least equally as bad as death by starvation. What?

And like I said, the positives give you pleasure because you are avoiding the liabilities.



> _Y__ou can't shelter someone from getting cancer and dying. You can't shelter someone from getting mangled in a car crash, or starving to death in Ethiopia. You can be touched and your child can be touched, nobody is safe from suffering and no matter how hard you try or how much knowledge you gain you can never keep the wolves from the door._
> 
> Earlier you talked about knowledge. Scientists and doctors are working on cancer. New cures are being discovered I just heard about last week. Car safety is regulated by the U.S. government who keeps a close watch on this. Yes to Ethiopia. Nothing can be done <-- is that what you believe?


This part of the conversation was about a particular parent hoping to give their child a good life. Now we are expanding this to include the Government, scientists and doctors? OK I'll go with that.

We have this ideal society in our minds that we are progressing towards. Every generation of humans has believed that they were the lucky ones because they can see how badly the previous generations have suffered and their optimism bias and terror management blinds them to how much suffering is currently happening in their time. This is why hindsight is a thing. Hindsight applies to everything in human life, we see how things went wrong and can see how it could have gone better. Except people don't apply it to human life as a whole. When the last group of humans - or whatever comes after humans - are standing on the edge of annihilation because the Universe has finally selected us for extinction, are they going to think that all of this madness and suffering was worth it? I seriously doubt it.

We are never going to reach this ideal society we dream of. We keep thinking it is just around the corner and have thought that for thousands of years but we are never going to triumph over the chaos of the universe. 
There is always going to be something that will maim, torture and agonizingly kill us. Imagine how close the ancient Greeks living in luxury felt to the ideal world free of suffering. 

Two and a half thousand years later and humans are still killing each other by the millions.

Progress is slow, humans die quick. The equation is unbalanced and it will never be balanced as much as we want it to and like to delude ourselves into believing it will.



> I'm not sure I follow all that. Anyway I see Sisyphus as wasting his time. If Camus wants to be a pessimist, let him. He is not around to talk to. Anyone can feel helpless and angry and repeat futile things. If I felt that way I'd want out. I'd work at it until I found a way out. Screw Camus, lol.


Camus agrees with you in essence and I disagree with Camus, but we'll leave this out because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.



> _If the project has no goal, no discernible purpose, illusory benefits and involves the all too real suffering, pain and anguish of living beings? Yes. Abandon it as fast as you possibly can._
> 
> Agreed. Do something else. Are you a student? Employed? Ambitious or just wish to hang out?


In my example the project is existence. Doing something else isn't an option besides kicking the bucket.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> This is moving more into psychology and I'm not as certain about this kind of stuff as I am about the ethical philosophy.
> I don't believe that I am making this argument from a position of misery. I am not an incredibly happy person, but I have shelter, food, water, a good paying job for my age, I have been educated and have access to healthcare, I haven't been abused or bullied extensively throughout my life, I have never undergone any major trauma or loss either. If anything I should be the perfect candidate to stand on the Optimist side of this argument, and yet I maintain that life, in general, is an abomination.
> 
> I fail to see how psychology can come into this.


Thank you for that and fair enough. I'll put personal psychology on the back burner until I see differently.





> I said that there is no point to prevailing. You are saying that you'd want to know my capabilities to see if I can prevail.
> 
> I don't see the connection.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I chose a poor word or didn't define what I meant. By "prevail" I didn't mean just survive. I meant to come to believe life is worth while enough to overcome your belief that life should not continue for us and people in general.





> 1. You have seen many decide what resources they have and decide to gamble to have a child. The child gets lucky and grows up in a nice country with good healthcare and a bed to sleep in. That's fine. I am not denying that this happens.
> 
> 2. My point is that a lot of the time the parents decide what resources they have and decide to gamble, and then the gamble goes horrifically wrong. The child grows up in abuse, the child gets cancer, the parents die in a car crash a year after the child is born, the child ends up with a genetic disorder and lives in suffering.
> 
> You are making the argument that scenario 1 justifies scenario 2 and I can't understand how you can make that case.


Let's say there are two cases.
1. Living with adequate resources and observing *the odds are in one's favor *of reproducing a reasonably happy offspring.
2. Living with doubtful resources and observing *the odds are not in favor* of reproducing a reasonably happy offspring. Such may be the case when we look at an overpopulated world or a world at unremitting war.





> You're right. Humans as a rule are greedy, selfish, barbaric, cruel and occasionally do something to benefit another person [usually because it benefits them.]
> Why do we deserve to continue to exist balanced on the corpses of billions?


Because the case is like my above reply.
1. If the population of peoples is so nasty they cannot be overcome, then that is an argument for cessation.
2. But don't forget "man the social animal" has survived for hundreds of thousands of years. They couldn't have done that unless enough cared for each other. It's group behavior: sociology, as opposed to psychology. 

One must address today's conditions. Is the world going to be over-populated? Or is it going to improve itself enough to continue happily for a few more generations?




> There are nowhere near enough exceptions.


This is not just about exceptional individuals. It's about nations and economies and wars.




> I can't say anything other than you are seriously trivializing the suffering that people go through.


Why do you say that? I recognize suffering but am not preoccupied directly with it. I hope to make my own contribution in my own small way. What if I wrote a "Theory of Understanding" and it helped the world? Everyone does their own thing. You can try for yours. 





> "If I didn't tend the garden it wouldn't grow properly. Plants would die. Some will and I'll take note for next time."
> "If we don't make the world better it will continue to suffer. People would die. Some will and I'll take note for next time."
> 
> This is what the human race does. People die by the millions, and we think, "Woops, better hope that doesn't happen again any time soon, maybe a change in social policy could help?"
> Your theory of 'distance' is exactly what is wrong with the human race.



Let's be fair about this. Are you favoring humans? What about the many species today going extinct? Do you favor that because they can't find food? What about the suffering trillions of insects have to go through? Should I double up in empathetic pain because of those poor insects? What about those people on distance planets that I'm so distance from I don't care to save them? Should my conscience bother me that I don't care? 

Let's be realistic about this. We can't save everybody. But we can save some.







> 60 Million people were wiped off the face of the Earth during world war 2. How high does that number need to get before you say, "That's too much. This is stupid and not at all worth it. Please stop the train."
> 
> How many plants in your garden need to die night after night after night for years before you say, "OK. I'm obviously terrible at gardening and should give up this whole endeavor." ?
> 
> If this^ argument doesn't convince you in any way or give you pause then I don't think there is anything else I could possibly say that will come close to convincing you of my view.


Answered above I think. 




> My conclusion is that there is a gaping chasm between the importance of gaining pleasure and preventing suffering.
> There is an asymmetry between pleasure and pain which I feel I have already demonstrated.
> 
> If you had the choice of experiencing your greatest pleasure for a day but the price was that you had to suffer the worst pain for a day, would you do it?
> ...


Hedonism is another topic.





> A scientist could say that the only thing worthwhile is to discover and learn the mysteries of the Universe and I would say that they are using the distraction method to manage their terror and are wasting their life on something which they have deluded themselves into believing is important, which is the only thing that everyone can do, including you and I.


Will you allow that people are different. Must they believe or live as you?





> You seem to be saying that indigestion proves me wrong because you eat and it's a liability.
> Which is the same as saying that indigestion is at least equally as bad as death by starvation. What?
> 
> And like I said, the positives give you pleasure because you are avoiding the liabilities.


Freud spoke of "the reality principle." Sometimes we have to put up with a little pain because we want to go on with the rest of living.




> This part of the conversation was about a particular parent hoping to give their child a good life. Now we are expanding this to include the Government, scientists and doctors? OK I'll go with that.
> 
> We have this ideal society in our minds that we are progressing towards. Every generation of humans has believed that they were the lucky ones because they can see how badly the previous generations have suffered and their optimism bias and terror management blinds them to how much suffering is currently happening in their time. This is why hindsight is a thing. Hindsight applies to everything in human life, we see how things went wrong and can see how it could have gone better. Except people don't apply it to human life as a whole. When the last group of humans - or whatever comes after humans - are standing on the edge of annihilation because the Universe has finally selected us for extinction, are they going to think that all of this madness and suffering was worth it? I seriously doubt it.


Humans aren't extinct yet. Eventually you will get that wish when the Sun lives long enough ... in a few billion years it will commence to die. Meanwhile ...





> We are never going to reach this ideal society we dream of. We keep thinking it is just around the corner and have thought that for thousands of years but we are never going to triumph over the chaos of the universe.
> There is always going to be something that will maim, torture and agonizingly kill us. Imagine how close the ancient Greeks living in luxury felt to the ideal world free of suffering.
> 
> Two and a half thousand years later and humans are still killing each other by the millions.
> ...


You are new to this forum I take it. Do a "recent posts" on my name. I have a lot of interests. Some may amuse you. Others may not. Tell me what you think and I will comment.





> Camus agrees with you in essence and I disagree with Camus, but we'll leave this out because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
> 
> In my example the project is existence. Doing something else isn't an option besides kicking the bucket.


Have I convinced you of anything yet, lol.

BTW I wonder if anyone else is reading this thread. Maybe they are all extinct!


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> What matters is we have different personalities and therefore different motives. I like to treat questions as philosophical problems to be solved. Underneath I don't are for opinions because opinions aren't solutions. Opinions are like intuition. Something is observed and one party has to see too much through the eyes of the other. That's too hard. I'll take your example and see if it fits:
> 
> "*Is Donald Trump a good president?*"
> 
> ...


OK. I'm answering no, you are answering yes as a devil's advocate of some kind.

Any further determinations which need to be made?



> Don't agree. You make a statement without evidence. Reality testing need not be toward survival or DNA. Look at any adolescent. They don't even know what reality is and will go out doing self-destructive things.


Without evidence? Look at the world? People will do anything to survive. They'll screw over other people to survive, they'll cannibalize their dead loved ones to survive. 
Sometimes the survival mechanism and the reproduction mechanism can cross paths and cut one another off which is why teenagers can do stupid things. They don't know any better yet, and they think it makes them look cool. They think they are sticking it to the man, which makes them feel as though they are higher in the reproductive hierarchy.

Not to mention that I have also said that the brain is an imperfect organ, it can make mistakes. The ego is more like a zombie than a puppet master artfully making us dance in specific ways.



> Rollercoaster is a bad limited example as there are no choices. Use driving an automobile where you encounter a road sign with five choices of where to tour.
> 
> At this point I have to deliver some theory. Theoretically everything is caused. In that sense there is no free will because every choice is caused. Sam Harris's thought experiment is no good limited because every city choice is directly caused. We must define free-will before we can decide if we have it or not.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how you aren't agreeing with me here.

We seem to agree on every part of the decision process except you call 'operating with conscious choices' free will even if it is in the unconscious mind where the final choice is made.

This is patently not free will in the sense that everyone else on Earth seems to mean when they say they have free will.
There is no conscious choice, there is a conscious presentation of the choices, we get to look at them from different angles, but the conscious mind does not choose.

I also don't understand why something not being practical doesn't make it true.

If practicality in terms of furthering the continuance of the human race is a large portion of how you define truth then my ability to convince you that ending the human race through lack of reproduction is the best thing for us to do is going to fall far short of what is required.



> Already you are ready for me to forget this conversation? No. I don't believe you. Or rather what I don't know is why you would put your entire ego into pessimism ... unless as an INFJ you are stating your intuition and feeling without using Ti? I am a Ti person. Pardon me for speaking cognitive functions. INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se.


I don't see why an INFJ couldn't have a well developed Ti. Not to mention that plenty of people are mistyped. Especially as INFJ. I may not even be one given how new I am to MBTI. Do I appear to be an INFJ?

Could you explain why my Ti appears to be below par, or why I am relying too much on Ni?



> I feel as though I have already more than adequately explained why the statistics don't matter, what their purpose was in my original argument, and how we can advance this portion of the conversation. Re-read the statement you quoted.
> I lost you. Do the statistics matter or not? I accept them as facts because I don't do surveys. It's now a matter of interpreting.


The statistics don't matter. You are guaranteed to mis-interpret the statistics if you apply them in this conversation any further than my using them to illustrate the point that suffering is wide spread and likely worse than a lot of people think.

Not that these particular cases of death and suffering occurred to over 50% of the population.

The asymmetry makes them irrelevant. 



> Procreation does not defeat death. Procreation just provides another person to die. Procreation feeds death.
> The difference is immediacy. Facing death, procreation sees a child beginning life. That the child will die later is later. The living is now.


This is what humans do though isn't it? We put off death, have a near brush with it and say we have defeated it. And yet it still does drag us kicking and screaming from existence. 

Now or later doesn't matter, especially when, if you view it as I do, the intervening time is made up of delusions.



> This gets to the heart of the problem and it's excellent to see that you are being honest about this.
> What'd I say? What'd I say?
> 
> You say that if one person out of 100 suffers intolerable suffering then that is just something we have to put up with. Life goes on, ce la vie.
> ...


You were honest in answering the asymmetry, except you answered it for someone else rather than yourself.

If the question is: Are you willing to have 5 minutes of your greatest pleasure in exchange for 5 minutes of your greatest suffering?

You answered, 'Yes. But that person over there has to go through the 5 minutes of pain instead of me.'

You say that it's not acceptable because we can take notes and address it. If you can point me to the ideal future where people don't suffer intolerably at all then I will accept your view. If you can't point me to it then you are saying that the suffering of the one is acceptable until we figure out how to solve it.

'Until we figure out how to solve it' is not acceptable because you are gambling and making other people pay when you lose.
You are going around and putting straws in people's pockets and you are saying that the person who gets the short straw is an acceptable casualty because we've got something better in store which will make it all worthwhile.

With this quote you are saying that yes, there is suffering and we can't change it for everyone. You're right, we can't make everyone stop reproducing. [Given that this is the only conceivable way to end suffering as a certainty that any human has ever formulated.] 

But we can accept that suffering is a real thing, that it matters more than anything else, and try to convince as many people as possible that they should not procreate. That way you spare thousands, if not millions, of people from suffering unnecessarily. But nobody is going to do that if they don't agree with the underlying claim that suffering matters more than anything else.

People agree with this in action, but to agree with it in words is to reduce life to the level at which I describe it. Suffering, pain, grief, torment and death filled with delusions to keep us happy and reproducing - and that just won't do for the optimists of this world.



> 99 people want to go on a rollercoaster to have a good time knowing that one of the seatbelts is faulty and they decide to do it anyway - fully knowing that one out of the 99 is going to fall and be mangled by the car. This is inhuman, it's insane.
> Going on that rollercoaster isn't wise. The operations manager will not allow it. No wonder you are a pessimist. You lack an operations manager!


Exactly. Except forcing people to go on the rollercoaster is exactly what we do every time someone gives birth.
Take your seat and hold on tight. Not everyone is going to make it, but for those of you who do it will be a great time. Don't pay too much attention to the people who fall away around you, it's all just the price we pay for the privilege to take the ride.



> Even though these 99 people are going to suffer anyway, some of them are going to throw up, some of them are going to decide they don't like the ride and want to get off half way through, and all of them are going to die when they get off anyway. All so that every now and again they can experience something which releases some chemicals which make them feel good in their brain for a little while every now and again?
> Do you like to hang around with foolish people and masochists? Stay away. Stay away. This may not be completely relevant, but do you know the story of the grasshopper and the ant?


I live around completely normal human beings.

I know the basics of the story but you can explain it and how it is relevant if you like.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> OK. I'm answering no, you are answering yes as a devil's advocate of some kind. Any further determinations which need to be made?


The question, "Does X see the continuance of the human species worthwhile?" is not a question about the outside objective world. "Worthwhile" is a value term making the issue about feeling. Anyone is allowed to have any feeling they wish. I see the question as being, what do we want to do with this feeling? Change it? Accept it?

That's the feeling aspect. Let's take the thinking aspect. Thinking has to do with order and classification.
Thinking wo feeling:
1. Continue human species.
2. Don't continue human species.
3. If continue, closed or open population count?
4. What timing and process to carry this out?








> Without evidence? Look at the world? People will do anything to survive. They'll screw over other people to survive, they'll cannibalize their dead loved ones to survive.
> Sometimes the survival mechanism and the reproduction mechanism can cross paths and cut one another off which is why teenagers can do stupid things. They don't know any better yet, and they think it makes them look cool. They think they are sticking it to the man, which makes them feel as though they are higher in the reproductive hierarchy.
> 
> Not to mention that I have also said that the brain is an imperfect organ, it can make mistakes. The ego is more like a zombie than a puppet master artfully making us dance in specific ways.


I have to rewrite this as it got erased. When you say, "The ego is more like a zombie" that is an example of an intuitive statement given wo evidence. It may very well have truth in it, but I can't work with it.







> I don't understand how you aren't agreeing with me here.
> 
> We seem to agree on every part of the decision process except you call 'operating with conscious choices' free will even if it is in the unconscious mind where the final choice is made.
> 
> ...


This reply also got erased. I won't be able to reproduce it as I put together a lot of things. Maybe it'll come out later.

One person's practicality may not be another's. We seem to agree on some things but not my definition of free-will as depending on conscious input. Free will depends a lot on consciousness but I wouldn't expect everything to be conscious. It's like saying, if one knows what their doing it is free-will. If they are subject to unconscious forces, it ain't. 

An example of saying something wo proof is, "even if it is in the unconscious mind it's where the final choice is made." There is no reason to assume that.

A final choice can be conscious. If I'm confronted with a road sign menu and the 3rd item is a playground, I may already have in mind I seek a playground. Therefore I will myself to follow the 3rd item direction. That there are other unconscious forces present is something to ignore.











> I don't see why an INFJ couldn't have a well developed Ti. Not to mention that plenty of people are mistyped. Especially as INFJ. I may not even be one given how new I am to MBTI. Do I appear to be an INFJ?
> 
> Could you explain why my Ti appears to be below par, or why I am relying too much on Ni?


Good questions. I'm not good at telling other people's types. I take your self-description of INFJ as close enough and see no contradiction. Ti? Mine is supposed to be primary. Yours is 3rd in line. I theorize 3rd in line means it is devoted to the primary and auxiliary which in your case would be Ni and Fe. This is only theory, mind you. Your Ni tells you "discontinue the human race" is okay. Your Fe says you openly express human suffering is horrible and intolerable. Does this help with our differences? Let's see.

Your Ti does give reasons but aren't they to back up your Ni and Fe? My Ti wants to look around everywhere, ignore Ni, look at Ne around me, and especially ignore Fe. My Fe (INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe) is last. I use Fe only to seek compatibility with your view. As to your stated pessimism that is Ni to me. You state it but I cannot read your source since it is hidden within you. You see something I don't see. I look around with my Ne but there is too much to see and I don't know you well enough.

Continuing my thoughts, my Ne observes people in general are aware of and fear bad suffering, but they don't dwell on it. They seek to avoid it but when encountering it try their best to deal with it. Some people devote their lives to taking care of other people while others don't care at all, living a life of hedonism.

You have spoken of illusion and delusion. Though that may be present in people I see no reason why it must be the rule. People know what they are doing. They know enough to avoid pain and seek enjoyment. It's not a big deal and is obvious to them. They are not deluded. I forgot how you put your position on this.

Afterthought. 
We don't have to talk Ni and Ne. Said another way, you look inwardly and observe suffering, scorning statistics. I look outwardly, observing statistics that tell me what proportion of people might be seeing your view. You more than I say feelings count. Suffering counts. I push feelings aside wanting to give ALL feelings their place as I see all kinds in myself and in others.

Here is me and my experience yesterday: I loaded dozens of buckets by hand to fill in a swamp around where I live. My knee hurts and it rained all day. I wasn't interested in that suffering because I was so eager to attack that swamp. I thought of the future where the next land owner would enjoy things more wo all those biting bugs that breed in the swamp. Right now I'm getting ready to watch 1/2 hour of news. Usually it's 80 percent suffering. Maybe I will relate to it and maybe not. Don't know. But I hardly would want to cease to exist as I'm eager to do these other things.






> The statistics don't matter. You are guaranteed to mis-interpret the statistics if you apply them in this conversation any further than my using them to illustrate the point that suffering is wide spread and likely worse than a lot of people think.
> 
> Not that these particular cases of death and suffering occurred to over 50% of the population.
> 
> The asymmetry makes them irrelevant.


More unsupported intuition? Statistics don't matter? How so? So what if there is SOME suffering. How would that lead to eliminating all people? Why do away with 99 percent if one percent now suffer from cancer? If you are a person who feels so badly that suffering exists in the world that you want to eliminate everyone, suffering or not, then I'm wondering if allowed, how much suffering YOU would be contributing to the world?







> This is what humans do though isn't it? We put off death, have a near brush with it and say we have defeated it. And yet it still does drag us kicking and screaming from existence.
> 
> Now or later doesn't matter, especially when, if you view it as I do, the intervening time is made up of delusions.


"We put off death"? Is that more intuition? We don't put off death. We concentrate on life. We are too busy to worry about end stages. Would you pick up a novel to read and immediately throw it into the fire because the novel has a last page? 

What delusions? Another assumption. I don't know how you defined delusion (refresh my memory) but whatever your definition is, what's so bad about it? You mean because we ignore death and suffering? Big deal. If you are a specialist in death and suffering, go for it. That doesn't mean that attitude has to be spread around to everyone else.





> You were honest in answering the asymmetry, except you answered it for someone else rather than yourself.
> 
> If the question is: Are you willing to have 5 minutes of your greatest pleasure in exchange for 5 minutes of your greatest suffering?
> 
> You answered, 'Yes. But that person over there has to go through the 5 minutes of pain instead of me.'


I don't know what I said before. I see that question as being too abstract. We need a real situation. Off hand I'd say no to the 5 minutes for myself. But what if my loved one was drowning? I might jump in, inhale a lot of water, break my leg and crack my skull. I might enjoy a long-term pleasure though knowing I saved a loved one in spite of permanent damage to me.




> You say that it's not acceptable because we can take notes and address it. If you can point me to the ideal future where people don't suffer intolerably at all then I will accept your view. If you can't point me to it then you are saying that the suffering of the one is acceptable until we figure out how to solve it.


Another hypothetical. Shall I address all aspects of that?





> 'Until we figure out how to solve it' is not acceptable because you are gambling and making other people pay when you lose.
> You are going around and putting straws in people's pockets and you are saying that the person who gets the short straw is an acceptable casualty because we've got something better in store which will make it all worthwhile.


This is a false hypothetical. Want me to apply Ti to this?




> With this quote you are saying that yes, there is suffering and we can't change it for everyone. You're right, we can't make everyone stop reproducing. [Given that this is the only conceivable way to end suffering as a certainty that any human has ever formulated.]


As above, why aren't you personally able to accept that there will be some suffering we can't control?





> But we can accept that suffering is a real thing, that it matters more than anything else, and try to convince as many people as possible that they should not procreate. That way you spare thousands, if not millions, of people from suffering unnecessarily. But nobody is going to do that if they don't agree with the underlying claim that suffering matters more than anything else.


This reminds me of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater, lol." You want to terminate people because there is suffering much of which is worth enduring? I admit the bathwater is dirty, but it should not harm the baby.



> People agree with this in action, but to agree with it in words is to reduce life to the level at which I describe it. Suffering, pain, grief, torment and death filled with delusions to keep us happy and reproducing - and that just won't do for the optimists of this world.


Another saying: you see the glass half empty; others see it half full.




> Exactly. Except forcing people to go on the rollercoaster is exactly what we do every time someone gives birth.
> Take your seat and hold on tight. Not everyone is going to make it, but for those of you who do it will be a great time. Don't pay too much attention to the people who fall away around you, it's all just the price we pay for the privilege to take the ride.


False assumption. Life is not a rollercoaster with no free-will. Life is learning to drive a car, teaching others to drive a car, and avoiding accidents as much as possible.





> I live around completely normal human beings.
> 
> I know the basics of the story but you can explain it and how it is relevant if you like.


That's good. You didn't say about yourself. Are you normal?

Grasshopper and the ant.
The ant applied its free-will to save up for winter. The grasshopper, having no free-will took its chances believing "the world owes me a living." Come winter, the ant did well. The grasshopper spent the winter in unbearable suffering not knowing what hit it.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> The question, "Does X see the continuance of the human species worthwhile?" is not a question about the outside objective world. "Worthwhile" is a value term making the issue about feeling. Anyone is allowed to have any feeling they wish. I see the question as being, what do we want to do with this feeling? Change it? Accept it?
> 
> That's the feeling aspect. Let's take the thinking aspect. Thinking has to do with order and classification.
> Thinking wo feeling:
> ...


If this is how you are defining the question then we might as well end this conversation now.

If you are looking for me to give you irrefutable scientific, quantifiable, precise, statistical evidence that life is not worth continuing then you have won this argument.
I cannot do that, just as you cannot do the same for the proposition that life is worth continuing.

What I can do is give you a series of logical arguments to defend the statement that life is not worth continuing.
I can give you logical arguments for why the method by which life should cease to continue is not through the killing of already existing life, but the lack of bringing into existence new life.

You claim to be using Ti while you claim that I am using Ni. 

I dispute this massively considering the only justifications you have given for the continuance of life have been almost exclusively focused on the feelings inherent to life. The emotional satisfaction of living.

I, on the other hand, have given you analogies and metaphors, logical comparisons of pleasure vs pain, neuroscientific arguments to do with the existence of free will and the self, evolutionary and biological justifications for the meaninglessness of the 'protect and reproduce the DNA' game.

I present my argument in an emotional fashion because, through conversation with people on this subject, when the main theme is the ending of the suffering of life, the worst thing to do is make this conversation completely unemotional. This isn't to say that I am making the conversation unobjective. I am looking at the world objectively, and I would argue that it is the optimists of this world who aren't looking at the world objectively.

Imagine, for instance, that you are presented with a brand new planet. There is no life on this planet, but at the press of a button you could begin the process of life. Life on this planet would evolve in much the same way that it has on this planet, with all of the happiness, the animals playing together and grooming each other, but also the cancer, the torture and the torment, the animals tearing each other apart while their families watch on in horror, and the death which eventually will come to every piece of life on the planet.
You are not going to be able to engage in any of this pleasure or suffering, you won't even be able to watch it unfold or intervene in any way, but you do know that it will eventually end. Something will occur which will cause all life on this planet to go extinct.

Would you press the button?



> _Without evidence? Look at the world? People will do anything to survive. They'll screw over other people to survive, they'll cannibalize their dead loved ones to survive._
> _Sometimes the survival mechanism and the reproduction mechanism can cross paths and cut one another off which is why teenagers can do stupid things. They don't know any better yet, and they think it makes them look cool. They think they are sticking it to the man, which makes them feel as though they are higher in the reproductive hierarchy._
> 
> _Not to mention that I have also said that the brain is an imperfect organ, it can make mistakes. The ego is more like a zombie than a puppet master artfully making us dance in specific ways._
> ...


You seem to be doing this quite a lot - and I don't want to say that you are doing it on purpose, but it does harken back to the point I made about this conversation not being able to go anywhere if you don't have time to respond to everything I am saying (which I do completely understand is not your fault, especially if PerC is deleting your responses through errors) - I will make a long statement, usually where the first sentence and the last sentence are still connected by an overarching meaning, and you will take a part of it and respond to that, even if the answer I may make has already been delineated when the whole statement is taken in full to begin with.

The reason why I say the ego is more like a zombie is not because of some internal feeling about the world, it is because of what I see when I observe the world.

I do not see a species of well-adjusted and precisely tuned beings going about their day, surviving and reproducing. I see a bunch of, for the lack of a better term, zombies, droning on from day to day, barely surviving and for the most part, barely reproducing. The first statement I made in the section you responded to here gives a reason for holding this view. People will do anything to survive. 

People wouldn't have to do *anything* to survive if people were controlled by an incredibly intelligent ego. People wouldn't be put into situations where they would have to do *anything* to survive by this ego if it was intelligent, so it is more like a zombie than a puppet master.



> _I don't understand how you aren't agreeing with me here.
> 
> We seem to agree on every part of the decision process except you call 'operating with conscious choices' free will even if it is in the unconscious mind where the final choice is made.
> 
> ...


You seem to be confusing a conscious final choice with a more concrete and sudden final choice.

You already know where you are going, so your unconscious mind doesn't have to work as hard to come up with an answer, so it is more immediate. The immediacy of the decision does not mean that your conscious mind made the decision.

Also, you claim that I am making assertions without proof. I think this is a very slippery slope for you to go down. I am not claiming that I have proof for any of the claims I am making, I am simply claiming that they make logical sense. 

If you want to go down the route where we have to provide irrefutable proof for everything that we make a claim about then I do not envy your position given where the burden of proof lies here but I do not want to go down that route.

If a logical argument is not acceptable to you then we should cease this discussion about free will. I do not claim to be able to prove to you that free will does not exist. Just as I would not claim to a theist that I can prove a God does not exist.

I do claim to be able to prove to you that we have *no good reason* to believe that free will does exist, as with a theist regarding God.



> Continuing my thoughts, my Ne observes people in general are aware of and fear bad suffering, but they don't dwell on it. They seek to avoid it but when encountering it try their best to deal with it. Some people devote their lives to taking care of other people while others don't care at all, living a life of hedonism.


I don't know what to make of everything you said before this, but I observe this about the world too.
Does that mean that my Ne is as developed as yours in this context? If so, does the distinction between my use of Ni and your use of Ne even matter?

If we can both look at the world and come to the same conclusion about the people in it, then why does MBTI need to be involved?



> You have spoken of illusion and delusion. Though that may be present in people I see no reason why it must be the rule. People know what they are doing. They know enough to avoid pain and seek enjoyment. It's not a big deal and is obvious to them. They are not deluded. I forgot how you put your position on this.


They are deluded into thinking that avoiding pain and seeking enjoyment is a good enough reason to continue this game.



> We don't have to talk Ni and Ne. Said another way, you look inwardly and observe suffering, scorning statistics. I look outwardly, observing statistics that tell me what proportion of people might be seeing your view. You more than I say feelings count. Suffering counts. I push feelings aside wanting to give ALL feelings their place as I see all kinds in myself and in others.


I don't look inwardly, I look outwardly at the world. Your belief that I scorn statistics demonstrates your confusion on my position, and that could be my fault. I still feel as though I have more than adequately explained why I said the statistics don't matter with regards to my position, but I will try again in a different way.

Answer me the question, can something be both vague and true? If you agree with this statement then you should understand why I said the statistics don't matter.

Everyone suffers, suffering is a universal phenomenon experienced by every living thing on this planet to differing degrees.
Everyone feels pleasure, pleasure is a universal phenomenon experienced by every living thing on this planet to differing degrees.

We cannot say which is felt more. We cannot say that, '52% of living organisms feel more suffering in life' or, '60% of living organisms feel more pleasure in life'

What we can have a discussion about is whether the suffering *matters* more than the pleasure. Not if there is more in the world, but if it *matters* more.

This is my position. I don't believe you could prove that more pleasure exists in the world just as I couldn't prove that more suffering exists in the world. I believe that it does, but I understand that I have no statistical basis for that. 
So we have to look at the experiences of suffering and pleasure in and of themselves to determine which matters more.

I don't think I can explain in any other terms why the statistics do not matter with regards to my argument.

I don't say feelings count more than you, I say that one specific feeling counts more than you.

You spread all feelings out and distribute importance between them equally.
I give you analogies which logically demonstrate that one feeling matters more than all of the others. 

That suffering is the most important feeling, it is the most strongly felt, it is universally felt, it is avoided at the expense of all other feelings.

If I say that you can have five minutes of intimacy if you first go through five minutes of boredom. You would probably say yes, those feelings are quite equal on the scales. If I say that you can have five minutes of your greatest pleasure in exchange for five minutes of your greatest suffering the scales are in no way balanced.

You can replace pleasure with any other feeling in the world, you are never going to choose to go through the five minutes of your greatest suffering in exchange for anything because we instinctively, rationally and intelligently know that to avoid suffering at the expense of other feelings is the right thing to do because suffering matters more than any other feeling.



> Here is me and my experience yesterday: I loaded dozens of buckets by hand to fill in a swamp around where I live. My knee hurts and it rained all day. I wasn't interested in that suffering because I was so eager to attack that swamp. I thought of the future where the next land owner would enjoy things more wo all those biting bugs that breed in the swamp. Right now I'm getting ready to watch 1/2 hour of news. Usually it's 80 percent suffering. Maybe I will relate to it and maybe not. Don't know. But I hardly would want to cease to exist as I'm eager to do these other things.


Yes, and this is where the delusion comes in to play. Humans will do things which cause them pain because as I have explained, the ego is a zombie. 
The ego is dumb, it's manufactured to keep us away from suffering and keep us in pleasure, but in combination with the real world, it sucks at it.

Just because we can logically recognize that suffering is the most important feeling and that avoiding and preventing it is the purpose of life doesn't mean that we stop inflicting suffering on others and ourselves for reasons which are driven by our delusions that we are accomplishing something.



> _The statistics don't matter. You are guaranteed to mis-interpret the statistics if you apply them in this conversation any further than my using them to illustrate the point that suffering is wide spread and likely worse than a lot of people think.
> 
> __Not that these particular cases of death and suffering occurred to over 50% of the population.
> 
> ...


I don't think this conversation is going to work out or progress in any meaningful way. You seem to be forgetting points that I have already made because this has been going on for so long. Like when you asked me how I would go about ending life on this planet and I gave you an answer which specifically avoided inflicting suffering on people and then you ask me, 'If you are a person who feels so badly that suffering exists in the world that you want to eliminate everyone, suffering or not, then I'm wondering if allowed, how much suffering YOU would be contributing to the world?'

And 'SOME Suffering' as I have said, I don't know what world you are looking at if you genuinely believe that only SOME people suffer.

I really don't know how to word this so that it engages your Ti, but if you look at the world objectively imagine that no other feelings ever existed other than suffering and tell me that only SOME of the people on this planet are currently engaged in suffering of some kind. Tell me that it is only 1% and that the other 99% are not feeling anything at all.

If you believe that is the world we live in then hallelujah, we have nearly reached the promised land, the ideal world is just around the corner.




> _This is what humans do though isn't it? We put off death, have a near brush with it and say we have defeated it. And yet it still does drag us kicking and screaming from existence.__Now or later doesn't matter, especially when, if you view it as I do, the intervening time is made up of delusions._
> "We put off death"? Is that more intuition? We don't put off death. We concentrate on life. We are too busy to worry about end stages. Would you pick up a novel to read and immediately throw it into the fire because the novel has a last page?
> 
> What delusions? Another assumption. I don't know how you defined delusion (refresh my memory) but whatever your definition is, what's so bad about it? You mean because we ignore death and suffering? Big deal. If you are a specialist in death and suffering, go for it. That doesn't mean that attitude has to be spread around to everyone else.


Yes, we put off death. Are you denying that is the case? Can anyone deny that is the case? That we avoid death?
Consciously we concentrate on life, which is by definition putting off and avoiding death, we are consciously too busy to worry about end stages and we don't worry about the end stages because we have an optimism bias. We are too happy and optimistic to think about the inevitable end of our lives, the inevitable end of all lives. 

Unconsciously the ego does everything it can to stop us from thinking about death, from becoming depressed and cutting our own strings. So the ego gives us toys to play with to keep us happy and to keep the DNA molecule replicating.

We call this 'concentrating on life', 'living for a better tomorrow', 'self actualizing and realizing our potential.'
Which, if you look at it objectively, is all nonsense. 
Tomorrow isn't going to be any better than today, tomorrow could be the worst day the world has ever seen, it could be the worst day of your life - it's going to be the worst day of somebodies life, but as long as it's not yours then that's OK.
We all know that this is nonsense, that the game is stupid, it has no meaning, and that we are all just going along with it because we're too afraid to die or rock the boat.

If I picked up a novel, read the first page and saw that it was obviously a terrible novel, with a horribly disjointed plot and barely legible writing, then yes, I would throw it in the fire. I wouldn't read it all until the end just in case some miracle happens and the last page turns into a brilliant work of art.

I define delusion as something which appears to be true but isn't. What's so bad about the delusions which cause us to ignore death and suffering? The death and suffering of other sentient beings?

I was hesitant to say this earlier because I don't know what you've been through in your life, but you obviously haven't had it bad enough yet.

To say something like, "What's so bad about it?" 

What's so bad about the suffering that sentient beings, just like you and I, go through on a daily basis, chronic pain and suffering, agony and torture, being ripped apart and eaten, being shoved into concentration camps, separated from your family and not knowing where they are or what is happening to them, starving to death in a fly ridden hut, walking down the street hand in hand with your loved one and having them ripped from your life by a drunk driver.

What's so bad about it?

You say that normal people don't dwell on suffering, like that's a rational thing to do. Like it's perfectly OK to not think about the inordinate amount of suffering which happens in this world, rather than a delusional frame of mind that your ego has put in place to keep your marching forward and imposing life on new people.




> _You were honest in answering the asymmetry, except you answered it for someone else rather than yourself.
> 
> __If the question is: Are you willing to have 5 minutes of your greatest pleasure in exchange for 5 minutes of your greatest suffering?
> 
> ...


The point of the question is to demonstrate the obvious difference between pleasure and suffering in terms of importance.
That you can come up with an anecdotal situation in which you define a suffering worth experiencing in exchange for a pleasure does not disprove that or go against it in any way.

You said that you would answer no to the question for yourself, but given your other statements around this question you have answered yes for someone else.

You have said that it is acceptable that some people suffer intolerably so that the rest of humanity can continue playing the life game.
You say that the 99% matter more than the 1% which is, in my view, to say the above.

So, when you extract it down to its purest form, you are in essence saying that it is acceptable for one person somewhere in the world to suffer intolerably so that you can continue playing your life game.

That is you answering the question yes, but for someone else.

This is what humans do, and we say it is acceptable because we don't dwell on suffering. It is easy to not dwell on suffering when you are not the person who is intolerably suffering.

Your consciousness and experience of the world is, in essence, no different to the person who is suffering intolerably, so why do you get to answer Yes to the question for them, but are reluctant to answer Yes for yourself?
Because you don't dwell on suffering. 

People need to deeply understand that the circumstances which today make them a privileged person who does not suffer could tomorrow make them a person who is suffering intolerably, and they don't and that is the problem with this planet, that is why people are resistant to this position.



> _You say that it's not acceptable because we can take notes and address it. If you can point me to the ideal future where people don't suffer intolerably at all then I will accept your view. If you can't point me to it then you are saying that the suffering of the one is acceptable until we figure out how to solve it._
> Another hypothetical. Shall I address all aspects of that?


Yes. Address it. It isn't a hypothetical.

You say that the intolerable suffering is *not acceptable.
*
That we can and do take notes to *address suffering*, that is to fight and end suffering.

This is akin to saying that this is all worth it because one day we will have *addressed suffering.*

If we do not have an ideal future where we have addressed suffering and it no longer exists in an intolerable form then it will forever be *not acceptable.*

If intolerable suffering is *not acceptable* and it is going to exist forever then you agree with my position that it is *not acceptable* and *intolerable* and we must take the quickest and most effective route to *end suffering.
*
The only method ever proposed by a human being to end the *intolerable suffering *of a thing is to remove the thing which suffers from existence.
If you cannot propose a more effective method by which to end intolerable suffering and give me the specific route to reaching that point then you are saying that *intolerable suffering* is *acceptable* until and if we figure out how to solve it.

Until you provide this method, I get to say that *intolerable suffering* is *not acceptable* and that we should do X about it.
You get to say that *intolerable suffering* is *acceptable* for now because we might figure out how to stop it *eventually.

*


> _With this quote you are saying that yes, there is suffering and we can't change it for everyone. You're right, we can't make everyone stop reproducing. [Given that this is the only conceivable way to end suffering as a certainty that any human has ever formulated.]_
> As above, why aren't you personally able to accept that there will be some suffering we can't control?


I can't accept it because it isn't true. We can control suffering if we stop making things which suffer.
We're all just too addicted to the life game that we won't take the solution to the unacceptable and intolerable suffering in the world.



> _But we can accept that suffering is a real thing, that it matters more than anything else, and try to convince as many people as possible that they should not procreate. That way you spare thousands, if not millions, of people from suffering unnecessarily. But nobody is going to do that if they don't agree with the underlying claim that suffering matters more than anything else._
> 
> This reminds me of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater, lol." You want to terminate people because there is suffering much of which is worth enduring? I admit the bathwater is dirty, but it should not harm the baby.


Where is the harm? Where have I said we should terminate people?
How is not bringing new people into existence synonymous with harming anyone or terminating anyone?



> _People agree with this in action, but to agree with it in words is to reduce life to the level at which I describe it. Suffering, pain, grief, torment and death filled with delusions to keep us happy and reproducing - and that just won't do for the optimists of this world._
> 
> Another saying: you see the glass half empty; others see it half full.


And yet this saying does nothing to get us closer to who is correct.



> False assumption. Life is not a rollercoaster with no free-will. Life is learning to drive a car, teaching others to drive a car, and avoiding accidents as much as possible.


I'll take your analogy. Life is learning how to drive a car, teaching someone else how to drive a car, avoiding accidents as much as possible and knowing for an absolute fact that one day you will be driving along and you will have an accident which will destroy you.



> _I live around completely normal human beings.
> 
> __I know the basics of the story but you can explain it and how it is relevant if you like._
> That's good. You didn't say about yourself. Are you normal?
> ...


You asked, '_Do you like to hang around with foolish people and masochists? Stay away. Stay away.' 
_I answered, 'I live around completely normal human beings.'
Now you are asking if I'm normal. I don't consider myself to be a foolish person or a masochist. I think it's quite obvious that I'm ethically and philosophically different to people in my life, but I don't think that makes me unique or special in comparison to them, so yes, I'm normal.

The story has no relevance to our arguments. My argument that there is no free will does not mean that we can begin living as though we think we have no free will.

Even if you accept the position that free will doesn't exist, that doesn't mean you can begin acting like you would if you were just a basic robot awaiting stimulus and reacting to it. The functions are ingrained in our perception of the world and how we act in the world, we can't change that we feel like we have free will any more than we can change our feeling of having a self.

I'd like to also include another analogy from David Benatar. I bring up the futility of life, and you say that because people can make a good thing of it, this justifies the original begetting of life.

Imagine taking a group of people and wrongfully imprisoning them. Some of these people, maybe even the majority of them, might take their imprisonment well and begin teaching the other prisoners to read, they might work on their physique and make friends with other prisoners, but this does not justify the act of falsely imprisoning them in the first place when there is a better alternative.


----------



## CowardlyPal (Jul 9, 2018)

You don’t exist. None of us do, not really.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

CowardlyPal said:


> You don’t exist. None of us do, not really.


Can you speak for yourself, or must you stand mute since you don't exist?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I have been having a little difficulty responding since I've had something written but it wasn't satisfying for me. If others know better how to reply they haven't spoken up or perhaps they already have and I've overlooked it. Your position has been quite a challenge. What I'm looking for in this conversation is some sort of ultimate *meeting of the minds *where we understand where the other fellow is at but don't necessarily have to agree. 

One of the problems I have in this exchange is too many themes. The implication is they are all related yet each has been so drawn out it's hard to pull them together. These themes:
1. Should new life be created?
2. Does "free will" have meaning?
3. How do we balance enjoyment versus suffering? Do we address this qualitatively or quantitatively? 



ProfessorNobody said:


> If this is how you are defining the question then we might as well end this conversation now.


I take it that is in response to this:
 
* *












Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*  




* *




The question, "Does X see the continuance of the human species worthwhile?" is not a question about the outside objective world. "Worthwhile" is a value term making the issue about feeling. Anyone is allowed to have any feelings they wish. I see the question as being, what do we want to do with this feeling? Change it? Accept it?

That's the feeling aspect. Let's take the thinking aspect. Thinking has to do with order and classification.
Thinking wo feeling:
1. Continue human species.
2. Don't continue human species.
3. If continue, closed or open population count?
4. What timing and process to carry this out? 



Perhaps along the lines of what I said in that paranormal thread, it being a way for me to state (to myself) what is, what I observe, wo making a judgment. Perhaps you object because I got so technical and refused to make a judgment. My motive in doing that is to try to clear my mind. After all our messages are so long I've found it hard to pull things together ... so far.

Please note I have stricken out some of my replies with a line through them. Those are replies I believe are of questionable value on my part. Please skip them if you wish to. *I think we both are guilty of wishing to throw in everything into the kitchen sink making it very difficult to clean up.*


The difference between what is and what should be can be illustrated by the issue of building of a bridge or not. The usefulness or value or desire to build the bridge would be *entirely different* from the cold engineering blueprints for bridge construction. Or better yet, what is is the menu; what should be is the choice from the menu.

After looking at what I marked as #2 above. I realize that there are people and an organization here in the United States that actually carry this out. It is called "Planned Parenthood." Among other things, they provide information on birth control. Their purpose is to prevent the unnecessary births that bring about the misery and suffering you have spoken of so often.

At this point I would like to present some thoughts and see where they go. If they go nowhere or are repetitious, so be it. 

Life exists be it plant or animal. We can look for early causes but they are uncertain. We know it goes on. When two teenagers get together and produce new life, they don't think ahead of time that is is going to happen. The answer to why the new life exists is that it is chance. This business of willing new life or not willing it seems to be to be a matter of consciousness. Planned Parenthood is not a person but a group. If we don't ask why does that group exist but instead observe that it does exist and ask what is its consciousness, the answer is that it wills to examine how to continue or not continue life.

Think of a set of 1,000 dominoes falling. They all fall because of the nature of how they are set up. But if one gives a life, assumes a life to a middle domino, one can ask, "what can it choose?" Answer: to fall or not to fall. Nothing happens before it takes its little action. We don't have to ask what causes it to take action. That would be like being confronted with a menu and asking what caused the menu to exist in the first place.

We can now ask, do we want to continue life? Continuing existing life is a different question than creating new life. Existing life is so complex and has so much built in for continuance, there seems to be little we do control if the life is our own. If it is other lives, that is different. We are confronted with empathy if we have it and indifference if we don't. New life is different.

Asking if we should create new life seems oddly to be a matter of free will: should we will it or not? This puts a chooser in the position of God or gods. Would this new life want it if it existed? A problem here is we can't ask this question of a new life as it would already exist. We have to ask would we want a life that is not ours?

There are several answers to this question:
1. We can create plants to grow for beauty and our protection.
2. We can create plants to eat.
3. We can enslave animals, kill them and eat them.
4. We can create animals for companionship.
5. We can create humans for companionship, support and amusement.

I will stop here for the moment because these creations are all outside of ourselves. Humans and some other primates have an unusual quality that they see others of their kind as they would themselves and since they already exist, they see new yet to exist life as if it already existed. 

We call this empathy. The degree to which we have this empathy is the degree to which we would want to create creatures like ourselves. If we see others as enjoying life, we would want to create them. If we see others as suffering, we would not.






> I present my argument in an emotional fashion because, through conversation with people on this subject, when the main theme is the ending of the suffering of life, the worst thing to do is make this conversation completely unemotional.


Let's distinguish between the content of the subject from the examination of the content. The content is emotional. The examination should be unemotional.






> Imagine, for instance, that you are presented with a brand new planet. There is no life on this planet, but at the press of a button you could begin the process of life. Life on this planet would evolve in much the same way that it has on this planet, with all of the happiness, the animals playing together and grooming each other, but also the cancer, the torture and the torment, the animals tearing each other apart while their families watch on in horror, and the death which eventually will come to every piece of life on the planet.
> You are not going to be able to engage in any of this pleasure or suffering, you won't even be able to watch it unfold or intervene in any way, but you do know that it will eventually end. Something will occur which will cause all life on this planet to go extinct.
> 
> Would you press the button?


I am being asked to play God. Do what God did? Answer: depends on the bounty, the nature of living beings and whether I want to follow up with being responsible. If I'm going to bring about enjoyment, why not? If I'm going to bring suffering, I'd have to deal with my conscience. 


I'm skipping a lot here. If you find it important feel free to bring it up again.




> Answer me the question, can something be both vague and true? If you agree with this statement then you should understand why I said the statistics don't matter.


Funny you should mention that. I have six tools for understanding. One is that all things are "fuzzy" to a degree. To answer your question, if something is vague, the truth about it will be likewise vague. So now I will ask the question: Are those statistics vague or not? They seem to give counts on suffering. Maybe what is vague is the uncertainly of the *ratio* of suffering to the entire population. Five percent suffering is not the same as eighty percent suffering. If the ratio is vague the answer to your question about reproduction might be vague. Could that be part of our problem?



* *







> Everyone suffers, suffering is a universal phenomenon experienced by every living thing on this planet to differing degrees.
> Everyone feels pleasure, pleasure is a universal phenomenon experienced by every living thing on this planet to differing degrees.
> 
> We cannot say which is felt more. We cannot say that, '52% of living organisms feel more suffering in life' or, '60% of living organisms feel more pleasure in life'
> ...





This is too much for me to address at this time even if it deserves a response.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> our position has been quite a challenge. What I'm looking for in this conversation is some sort of ultimate *meeting of the minds where we understand where the other fellow is at but don't necessarily have to agree. *


I completely understand your point of view. There is a quote by someone I'm forgetting which says something along the lines of 'inside every pessimist is a tired idealist.'

I crave the better future for humanity and the world that optimists generally do. At my core I am a die-hard idealist. I love the idea of a grand future for humanity, traversing the cosmos, forming new relationships, learning the mysteries of the universe, and living without suffering, but I cannot ignore what my mind has, rationally and correctly in my opinion, concluded about the state of the world and the unjustifiable harm of bringing new life into existence.



> One of the problems I have in this exchange is too many themes. The implication is they are all related yet each has been so drawn out it's hard to pull them together. These themes:
> 1. Should new life be created?
> 2. Does "free will" have meaning?
> 3. How do we balance enjoyment versus suffering? Do we address this qualitatively or quantitatively?


Yes, there are many themes to philosophical pessimism and I believe that they do all converge on the conclusion that bringing new life into existence is wrong.

It is easy for me to keep up with each thread and see how they interlink because I have spent years thinking on them whereas you have not so it is understandable that you might be having a hard time pulling them together.



> After looking at what I marked as #2 above. I realize that there are people and an organization here in the United States that actually carry this out. It is called "Planned Parenthood." Among other things, they provide information on birth control. Their purpose is to prevent the unnecessary births that bring about the misery and suffering you have spoken of so often.


I believe that they are doing great work in the realm of prevention, but they also make it much easier for people to make the decision to have a child, so for my philosophy they are a double edged sword.



> Life exists be it plant or animal. We can look for early causes but they are uncertain. We know it goes on. When two teenagers get together and produce new life, they don't think ahead of time that is is going to happen. The answer to why the new life exists is that it is chance. This business of willing new life or not willing it seems to be to be a matter of consciousness. Planned Parenthood is not a person but a group. If we don't ask why does that group exist but instead observe that it does exist and ask what is its consciousness, the answer is that it wills to examine how to continue or not continue life.


You say that when the two teenagers get together and produce a child they are not thinking that this is what is going to happen. You say that it's just chance that a new life exists.

I say that while they might not consciously know ahead of time what they are actually doing (consciously they are just having some fun) but in an instinctual and unconscious sense they are doing exactly what they are programmed to do by nature.

My point is that we have been given this thing we refer to as intelligence, the ability to reason about nature - and this could be the biggest mistake that nature ever made because it could bring about the end of the natural world - we should use our intelligence to act in accordance with the most rational conclusion we can make about life.



> Asking if we should create new life seems oddly to be a matter of free will: should we will it or not? This puts a chooser in the position of God or gods. Would this new life want it if it existed? A problem here is we can't ask this question of a new life as it would already exist. We have to ask would we want a life that is not ours?


I don't think it's a matter of free will, it's a matter of influence. I'm not trying to make you choose to accept my position. I'm trying to bombard you with enough good arguments that your brain will be forced to hold the same position as mine because it finds it to be the most reasonable position to hold.

It's not, should we will new life to exist or not, it's should we continue acting on the position that new lives should continue to be brought into existence.

Once a new life is born (and at the age where it can answer a philosophical question) it is already burdened with optimism bias. It is already burdened with the desire to continue existing.

We can't ask non-existent entities whether they would like to exist.

1) Which means that pulling someone from non-existence into the world is an imposition.
2) It means that we have to decide what is best for the non-existent by thinking of them as 'would-be persons.'



> We call this empathy. The degree to which we have this empathy is the degree to which we would want to create creatures like ourselves. If we see others as enjoying life, we would want to create them. If we see others as suffering, we would not.


Part of it is empathy, absolutely, but I think the majority of it is either logical or illogical.
I accept that there is both pleasure and pain in the world and I empathize with both. Logically I believe that the importance of avoiding pain outweighs the importance of seeking pleasure. 
So, even if through my empathy I determined that there was more pleasure in the world than pain, I would still have to contend with the logical problem of pleasure vs pain in terms of importance rather than in terms of quantity.



> I am being asked to play God. Do what God did? Answer: depends on the bounty, the nature of living beings and whether I want to follow up with being responsible. If I'm going to bring about enjoyment, why not? If I'm going to bring suffering, I'd have to deal with my conscience.


You are being asked to be objective, not be God. This is why you are to have no further influence over the world once you have begun the process of life.

The nature of the living beings is that they will experience both pleasure and pain to varying degrees.

If you know that the only reason that life exists on this planet is because you pressed a button and enjoyment is enough for you, while suffering is only an unfortunate side-effect, then do you believe that enjoyment is an end in and of itself? 

That the suffering of one is an acceptable side-effect of the enjoyment of another?

Can you not see how insidiously silly the game is that these beings which would not gain or be deprived of anything in non-existence are put into a world where they can either gain everything or be deprived of everything and the deciding factors in the game are completely unfair and out of any kind of control?

You could ask a five year old to invent a more intelligent set of rules for a game than you get from billions of years of natural evolution.



> Maybe what is vague is the uncertainly of the *ratio of suffering to the entire population. Five percent suffering is not the same as eighty percent suffering. If the ratio is vague the answer to your question about reproduction might be vague. Could that be part of our problem?*


The logical conclusion to the overall argument is not vague. It's very simple and very concrete.

Everyone suffers and everyone feels pleasure.
It is more important for people to avoid suffering than it is for them to seek pleasure.
As we know that people will *always fail* to avoid suffering in their lives, while they *may or may not be successful* in seeking pleasure, it is better not to gamble and take the risk of bringing a new life into existence.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> I completely understand your point of view. There is a quote by someone I'm forgetting which says something along the lines of 'inside every pessimist is a tired idealist.'
> 
> I crave the better future for humanity and the world that optimists generally do. At my core I am a die-hard idealist. I love the idea of a grand future for humanity, traversing the cosmos, forming new relationships, learning the mysteries of the universe, and living without suffering, but I cannot ignore what my mind has, rationally and correctly in my opinion, concluded about the state of the world and the unjustifiable harm of bringing new life into existence.


I hear you. If should get an ear block in the future, just give me a kick, lol.








> I believe that they [Planned Parenthood] are doing great work in the realm of prevention, but they also make it much easier for people to make the decision to have a child, so for my philosophy they are a double edged sword.


Okay







> You say that when the two teenagers get together and produce a child they are not thinking that this is what is going to happen. You say that it's just chance that a new life exists.
> 
> I say that while they might not consciously know ahead of time what they are actually doing (consciously they are just having some fun) but in an instinctual and unconscious sense they are doing exactly what they are programmed to do by nature.
> 
> My point is that we have been given this thing we refer to as intelligence, the ability to reason about nature - and this could be the biggest mistake that nature ever made because it could bring about the end of the natural world - we should use our intelligence to act in accordance with the most rational conclusion we can make about life.


There is some question about how intelligent is man. We have fun, create big bombs, but what do we do about the future?






> I don't think it's a matter of free will, it's a matter of influence. I'm not trying to make you choose to accept my position. I'm trying to bombard you with enough good arguments that your brain will be forced to hold the same position as mine because it finds it to be the most reasonable position to hold.
> 
> It's not, should we will new life to exist or not, it's should we continue acting on the position that new lives should continue to be brought into existence.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.






> Part of it is empathy, absolutely, but I think the majority of it is either logical or illogical.
> I accept that there is both pleasure and pain in the world and I empathize with both. Logically I believe that the importance of avoiding pain outweighs the importance of seeking pleasure.
> So, even if through my empathy I determined that there was more pleasure in the world than pain, I would still have to contend with the logical problem of pleasure vs pain in terms of importance rather than in terms of quantity.


This doesn't make full sense to me. "Pleasure" and "pain" are weak and narrow terms. The reality is everything is involved with everything else. The logic of avoiding one and seeking the other is not logic. It's an assumption. Also isn't "importance" a subjective term? If I say giraffes and newspapers are important, those are unsupported assumptions.






> You are being asked to be objective, not be God. This is why you are to have no further influence over the world once you have begun the process of life.
> 
> The nature of the living beings is that they will experience both pleasure and pain to varying degrees.
> 
> ...


I don't know what you are asking here. I'm not going to press a button that sends the living into a meat grinder. But if there is fertile land and reasonable intelligence for enjoyment, why not? If the living are going to enjoy themselves my conscience won't bother me. Nothing is perfect though. So what if all doesn't work right and there is a little suffering? Call it "growing pains." It should be self-correcting. I'm not dealing with five year olds. I'm dealing with mature adults.





> The logical conclusion to the overall argument is not vague. It's very simple and very concrete.
> 
> Everyone suffers and everyone feels pleasure.
> It is more important for people to avoid suffering than it is for them to seek pleasure.
> As we know that people will *always fail* to avoid suffering in their lives, while they *may or may not be successful* in seeking pleasure, it is better not to gamble and take the risk of bringing a new life into existence.


You have re-phrased what already has been said ... which is okay. What is more important is an assumption, not logic. If one encounters suffering, get over it. Address it and beat it and move on to better things. It makes no sense to meet suffering and say, "poor thing" that's the way it is and coddle it. Suffering should not be accepted, but is something to rise above. If we are intelligent beings, let's use that intelligence.

This post was a lot easier for me to deal with than the last one. Thanks for KISS-ing it. (*K*eep *i*t *s*imple *s*tupid).


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> There is some question about how intelligent is man. We have fun, create big bombs, but what do we do about the future?


We stop letting elitists guide our behavior.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> There is some question about how intelligent is man. We have fun, create big bombs, but what do we do about the future?


I think man is intelligent enough to decide whether the continuance of the game is warranted or not. 
Man just has to be made aware that not continuing the game is an option.



> This doesn't make full sense to me. "Pleasure" and "pain" are weak and narrow terms. The reality is everything is involved with everything else. The logic of avoiding one and seeking the other is not logic. It's an assumption. Also isn't "importance" a subjective term? If I say giraffes and newspapers are important, those are unsupported assumptions.


Yes, the child with cancer can laugh at the clown. They are experiencing both suffering and pleasure. 
The point is to look at the reason for the clowns presence. The clown is there to relieve the suffering. The suffering is not there to justify the clown.

We seek pleasure to avoid suffering. We seek pleasure to dampen the effects of suffering. We wouldn't feel the need to seek pleasure if suffering was not the alternative. This goes back to the part of the conversation where we discussed hunger and why people have to eat to satisfy hunger. 

I believe that a general principle can be extracted from this that life is mainly the pursuit of pleasure in order to stave off or diminish suffering. You may believe that this is an assumption, but I fail to see how it isn't a logical assumption.



> I don't know what you are asking here. I'm not going to press a button that sends the living into a meat grinder. But if there is fertile land and reasonable intelligence for enjoyment, why not? If the living are going to enjoy themselves my conscience won't bother me. Nothing is perfect though. So what if all doesn't work right and there is a little suffering? Call it "growing pains." It should be self-correcting. I'm not dealing with five year olds. I'm dealing with mature adults.


If I am overestimating the amount of suffering in the world, then I fail to see how you are not underestimating it.



> You have re-phrased what already has been said ... which is okay. What is more important is an assumption, not logic. If one encounters suffering, get over it. Address it and beat it and move on to better things. It makes no sense to meet suffering and say, "poor thing" that's the way it is and coddle it. Suffering should not be accepted, but is something to rise above. If we are intelligent beings, let's use that intelligence.


This is where I think you fall into a very unethical position. You say that suffering should not be accepted, that we should rise above it, and use our intelligence to solve it. But for the people who do experience the worst suffering imaginable which we can't solve right now, they just have to go through it so that the rest of us can encounter these less intense forms of suffering, like having a headache, and say that we are 'all' fighting suffering.

You are not saying that suffering is not acceptable. You are saying that for these people who have no way out right now, their suffering is acceptable so that the rest of us can carry on rising above our headaches. We hope to get around to solving the suffering these people go through, we probably won't get around to it, but their intolerable suffering is worth it.

This is what I meant when I said that life is a bunch of people all going on a rollercoaster ride with one faulty seat belt. So that the rest of the people on the ride get the thrill of it, one person has to be crushed. 

Should we all go on the rollercoaster or should we say no, the rollercoaster is stupid and not worth it?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> We stop letting elitists guide our behavior.


Are these accursed "elitists" superior or just aloof? I'm okay with somebody better at something than I am. I can learn from them. I'm not too hot on those who scorn me just because I am not up to what they do. Then I'm not encouraged to learn from them.

On the other hand if they don't or can't do what I do, there is the (fun) chance to see them grow if they will allow it.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

A Happenstance of chance. Without any thoughts existence took place. Spinning rocks in space started a carbon place. Eventually a meat virus took place.....Our race


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> Are these accursed "elitists" superior or just aloof?


They're clever. They get us to accept our position of serving them. They lure people with the possibility of becoming an elite. They influence the media to bring in peer pressure.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Hey.


Mick Travis said:


> They're clever.
> What's wrong with being skilled?
> 
> They get us to accept our position of serving them.
> ...


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> I think man is intelligent enough to decide whether the continuance of the game is warranted or not.
> Man just has to be made aware that not continuing the game is an option.


As you have said, man is programmed to reproduce. I would try out the word "pushed." Man is pushed to reproduce. The question is is he intelligent enough to be selective?






> Yes, the child with cancer can laugh at the clown. They are experiencing both suffering and pleasure.
> The point is to look at the reason for the clowns presence. The clown is there to relieve the suffering. The suffering is not there to justify the clown.
> 
> We seek pleasure to avoid suffering. We seek pleasure to dampen the effects of suffering. We wouldn't feel the need to seek pleasure if suffering was not the alternative. This goes back to the part of the conversation where we discussed hunger and why people have to eat to satisfy hunger.
> ...


I don't agree "The suffering is not there to justify the clown." The clown is there for fun. Fun is an expansive thing ... whatever that means. What is all this business about pleasure depending on pain? Pleasure is a way to keep going. Pain is a way to justify avoidance. What does one have to do with the other?





> If I am overestimating the amount of suffering in the world, then I fail to see how you are not underestimating it.


That may be so. Looks like we are going to need some "quality control" if we're going to answer that. 

Afterthought: one way of estimating this is *if the living entity is growing and the suffering has been net overcome*. If the living entity is *diminishing or dying, then suffering gets more points*. If the living entity is growing, then suffering gets less points. Evolution, as opposed to individuals, has yet to see the human race die out. Evolution therefore must be doing "something" right.

The reason for this is people like to grow and dislike to "die." By "die" I mean a net diminishing of functions.

I'll give an example for me. I like to run and always wanted to improve my best timing*. When I did, I was pleased. Now my peaks are slowing down. At first that was painful. But to compensate I have "fun" watching how high I can keep up the peaks. That's hard to explain. I have fun watching the diminishing peaks and want to hold up as long as possible. When I get an injury (and I do) I enjoy the peace that comes with rest and this gives me the opportunity to do something else. The injury is painful and the fear I may not recover causes me suffering. When I do recover I have fun resuming and chasing after peak runs. This gives me pleasure because any peaks at all are far better than the zero peaks while I'm injured. <--- I hope you don't take this as a silly example. If you think about this, it could be a metaphor for how to deal with the pleasure and pain you speak of.







> This is where I think you fall into a very unethical position. You say that suffering should not be accepted, that we should rise above it, and use our intelligence to solve it. But for the people who do experience the worst suffering imaginable which we can't solve right now, they just have to go through it so that the rest of us can encounter these less intense forms of suffering, like having a headache, and say that we are 'all' fighting suffering.
> 
> You are not saying that suffering is not acceptable. You are saying that for these people who have no way out right now, their suffering is acceptable so that the rest of us can carry on rising above our headaches. We hope to get around to solving the suffering these people go through, we probably won't get around to it, but their intolerable suffering is worth it.
> 
> ...


The first part really puzzles me. What does one party's suffering have to do with another's ... as if one kind of suffering was related to another? Extreme suffering can happen any time any where. This is not a zero-sum game. Extreme suffering can be examined for causes, but that is too late. It happens by chance: cancer and you or I getting hit by a car. We take a chance on getting cancer, but improve our odds by healthy living. We take a chance on getting hit by a car, having our spinal cord severed or nerve endings exposed. Yet we go out on the street every day on the road risking this occurrence. 

Didn't I say earlier life is not a rollercoaster ride? It is a car ride. One might find themselves riding a rollercoaster though. Best to avoid them. Best to avoid skydiving. If you must skydive or rollercoast, you are taking your chances and deserve what you get. Stick to safe driving. 



*Maybe because I like numbers. Taking your idea about *delusion*, we could say if my running time is 15 minutes one day and 17 minutes another, so what? What these numbers are have no meaning and therefore is my delusion. One could also say a new entity, namely timing, was created and it has a new existence creating meaning relative to me. Delusion gone!


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

It could be
-related to love (love makes life feel meaningful) 
-to help others
-an experiment: we are being experimented on
for some reason
- we are in some kind of moral test
-to have a good time (more difficult then it might seen, gotta think long term and short term consequences) 
-to clear up bad carma or fix our past
-because God wanted something to laugh at

:idunno:


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> I lost ya there.


Obviously. You seem to either be deceptive or naive. At the least, we each have a totally different understanding of society.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I got the blues.


Mick Travis said:


> Obviously.
> Obviously?
> 
> You seem to either be deceptive or naive.
> ...


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> As you have said, man is programmed to reproduce. I would try out the word "pushed." Man is pushed to reproduce. The question is is he intelligent enough to be selective?


I believe so.



> I don't agree "The suffering is not there to justify the clown." The clown is there for fun. Fun is an expansive thing ... whatever that means. What is all this business about pleasure depending on pain? Pleasure is a way to keep going. Pain is a way to justify avoidance. What does one have to do with the other?
> 
> The first part really puzzles me. What does one party's suffering have to do with another's ... as if one kind of suffering was related to another? Extreme suffering can happen any time any where. This is not a zero-sum game. Extreme suffering can be examined for causes, but that is too late. It happens by chance: cancer and you or I getting hit by a car. We take a chance on getting cancer, but improve our odds by healthy living. We take a chance on getting hit by a car, having our spinal cord severed or nerve endings exposed. Yet we go out on the street every day on the road risking this occurrence.


Here is the link between suffering and pleasure:

We have the option to end all suffering right now by ceasing to reproduce. We don't do this though because we cling to the pleasures of life.
It is because of the pleasures of life that the suffering of life must continue.

Your car analogy was about free will. The rollercoaster analogy is specifically about the link between pleasure in life and the suffering which must accompany it and the decision that we make as a species to continue riding the rollercoaster even when we know that there will be people who have to suffer intolerably so that we can continue riding the rollercoaster.

You don't believe that we can examine suffering for causes because it's too late. It doesn't have to be too late though. The root cause of all suffering is existence itself. Don't bring something into existence and it cannot suffer.



> Afterthought: one way of estimating this is *if the living entity is growing and the suffering has been net overcome. If the living entity is diminishing or dying, then suffering gets more points. If the living entity is growing, then suffering gets less points. Evolution, as opposed to individuals, has yet to see the human race die out. Evolution therefore must be doing "something" right.
> 
> The reason for this is people like to grow and dislike to "die." By "die" I mean a net diminishing of functions.
> 
> I'll give an example for me. I like to run and always wanted to improve my best timing*. When I did, I was pleased. Now my peaks are slowing down. At first that was painful. But to compensate I have "fun" watching how high I can keep up the peaks. That's hard to explain. I have fun watching the diminishing peaks and want to hold up as long as possible. When I get an injury (and I do) I enjoy the peace that comes with rest and this gives me the opportunity to do something else. The injury is painful and the fear I may not recover causes me suffering. When I do recover I have fun resuming and chasing after peak runs. This gives me pleasure because any peaks at all are far better than the zero peaks while I'm injured. <--- I hope you don't take this as a silly example. If you think about this, it could be a metaphor for how to deal with the pleasure and pain you speak of.*


I don't believe it's as simple as whether or not suffering has been net overcome, I believe it also comes down to how fast it is overcome and how strongly the remaining suffering is felt.

It has taken the human species alone 200,000 years to reach this point with over 100 billion deaths to account for this progress.
It reminds me of how the Russians fought in World War 2. Throw enough warm bodies at the opposition and something is bound to break through.

In the animal world, there is likely the same amount of, if not more due to population sizes, suffering that there has ever been on this planet.

And it's great that you can deal with suffering in such an uplifting way, but I'm more concerned with the people who can't.

Just imagine the world from the perspective of your non-existence. You have absolutely no stake in the world whatsoever, no optimism bias keeping you here, no specific pleasures that you enjoy, no family to keep happy or spouse to entertain. 

There is just you and the void. You would not know that you were being kept from experiencing the pleasures of this world if you were never to be brought into existence. 

There would be no risk of you getting cancer, getting hit by a car, watching your loved ones die, watching anyone suffer or suffering for eternity.

What is so bad about that?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ProfessorNobody said:


> I believe so.


Personally I have my doubts, but this forces me to label you an optimist.





> Here is the link between suffering and pleasure:
> 
> We have the option to end all suffering right now by ceasing to reproduce. We don't do this though because we cling to the pleasures of life.
> It is because of the pleasures of life that the suffering of life must continue.
> ...


I don't see how we can proceed unless we get this issue straightened out. Yes we could end suffering by ceasing to reproduce, but is it worth it? There is a difference between the car analogy and the rollercoaster analogy. I don't personally choose to ride the rollercoaster. Too risky. Been there. Done that. I'm no longer interested. You, however, are free to choose to do that. 

You say the root cause of suffering is existence. Not so. Existence causes lots of things. Something else has to cause suffering. The root cause of suffering is when life breaks down. Life does both: it breaks down and it grows. 





> I don't believe it's as simple as whether or not suffering has been net overcome, I believe it also comes down to how fast it is overcome and how strongly the remaining suffering is felt.


How fast suffering is overcome and how strongly would be factors. Need examples to verify.





> It has taken the human species alone 200,000 years to reach this point with over 100 billion deaths to account for this progress.
> It reminds me of how the Russians fought in World War 2. Throw enough warm bodies at the opposition and something is bound to break through.


Warm bodied Russians is an example. It's an example of net suffering. We don't want this. Maybe people should not have elected Hitler and Stalin. What a minute ... they weren't exactly elected.





> In the animal world, there is likely the same amount of, if not more due to population sizes, suffering that there has ever been on this planet.


Let me ask you this: Do plants suffer and if they do, do we care? I admit animals suffer. But is it net suffering? A fish that lives happily for 10 years and is eaten quickly, dies quickly. So it is with earthworms eaten by birds. 

Here is a morality Q: If we don't monitor fish, do we care that they suffer? If a baby seal is seen to be suffering, should we leave nature alone rather than interfere with it because of our "self-interested" empathy? After all seals and cows are not our species. If reducing sperm count is a technique to avoid the propagation of species, which species do we reduce first?

I'm not convinced of net suffering's existence in the animal kingdom. Not when some men put their own kind on rollercoasters and deliberately crash them.





> And it's great that you can deal with suffering in such an uplifting way, but I'm more concerned with the people who can't.


Those who are able to lift up themselves tend to want to lift up others. Social feeling, like propagation, is programmed into the human species.





> Just imagine the world from the perspective of your non-existence. You have absolutely no stake in the world whatsoever, no optimism bias keeping you here, no specific pleasures that you enjoy, no family to keep happy or spouse to entertain.
> 
> There is just you and the void. You would not know that you were being kept from experiencing the pleasures of this world if you were never to be brought into existence.
> 
> ...


It's not bad. It's neutral!


----------

