zurew

You dont need to give an exhaustive rundown what your personal theory is about what makes a good metaphysical theory, you can just give a 4-5 minute rundown about the usually used and mentioned theoretical virtues and then how analytic idealism ranks better given those than physicalism. People are expecting a deductive argument in the comment section, because they are confused, and they think Bernardo makes the claim that physicalism is impossible. This is why they bring up stuff like "but you didnt rule out bro, that we will find an explanation for consciousness in the future bro". They also bring up science as if that would be responsive to anything said about metaphysics. To be fair, Bernardo made it clear and said explicitly how you can do most of science while being metaphysically agnostic (when it comes to what the world is made out of) and most of the audience still managed to not track that point. I think a good way to cut through the confusion is to ask "what do you think you lose, when you adopt analytic idealism over physicalism". And this is where you will get replies about science, and then you can explain how all of science is compatible with analytic idealism and then you might get heureka moments from some of the incredibly confused commenters.

He is more and more sympathetic towards idealism. He said "Im pretty convinced that materialism characterized here is quite ludicrious"

If you would be honest and if you would take the same attitude towards all types of experiences like this, then you would need to actually engage with and evaluate experiences with deities (or with dmt entities and other types of entities) without you automatically categorizing all of those as false or as just demons, becuase you already have a conclusion in mind that you want to go with. But obviously people having an experience from that doesnt follow that it is a place or a dimension that you actually go to. And even if it actually exists, from that doesnt follow that you will go there once you die and it also doesnt follow that you going there is based on anything that Jesus said - maybe you going there or not going there is completely independent from all religious teachings. Also when it comes to your general attitude of "I dont have an alternative explanation therefore must be x" everyone knows that its not an honest explorative attitude and thats now how epistemology works. You not being aware of alternative explanations doesnt make the one explanation that you are aware of good or plausible in any way at all. I can say that the reason why my shoe is missing is because of a shoe stealing fairy and also say that im not aware of any alternative explanation - from that doesnt follow that I should go with the shoe stealing fairy theory or that it is plausible in any way at all.

He should have spent a little bit more time on laying down epistemic norms, becuase people in the comments are really confused about what set of norms they should use to judge these metaphysical debates. And the obvious answer is that its abductive - you are looking for the inference to the best explanation (so its based on theoretical virtues). If you dont start with that, then this is what you have - people confused asf fuck not having any basic toolset how to make sense of and how to evaluate different metaphysical theses. I guess this is not necessarily his problem, but an unprepared audience problem.

Im genuinely surprised that AI is still this stupid. Next time try to use claude to think for you, because chatgpt make you look bad.

Appreciate that you bring a positive image about christian mysticism (and about mysticism in general). Mysticism needs to be more highlighted, because people here have a general antagonistic attitude towards religions and they need to be reminded that there are versions of them where mysticism is taking place and a lot can be learned from them.

Okay, I changed my mind , I take it back. Now come back to the cult of free thinkers. There are only a couple thousand sheeps here.

Im here to take away your right to freely believe or disbelieve.

Yes I said that, but I didnt mean what you mean by that sentence. I meant the fact that most people are not against all consent violations in a principled way not that there cant be consent violation. There isnt any internal contradiciton shown there. Spell out the p and not p if you think there are internal contradicitions. Also, again, none of what you said shows to antinatalists that the human condition is not bad. Where do you think I made the point that those two are not distinct? My exact point is that these two things are distinct and that both of them are important to consider. Violation of consent means that you subjugate an individual to a set of unwanted experiences. Future violation of consent means that you subjugate a future sentient being to a set of unwanted experiences. Now try to apply and use my semantics and show under how I use these terms whats the contradicition or the incoherence without switching back to how you use these terms. Like knowing that once your daughter will be born she will be a sex-slave. You know before your kid is born what set of unwanted experiences she will go through and that was the meat of the 'violation of future consent' all along. This is why I implied that you using a different definition of consent that is incoherent with there being a future violation of consent doesnt really change substantially anything. Applying your semantics to the sex-slave example doesnt at all change the gravity of what you do once you decide to birth the kid. You know what set of unwanted experiences you will make her live through. Applying it to the p-zombie example, you know that once it actually becomes a sentient being for the first time and its reminded about the rape, that it will go through a set of very negative experiences. The same goes for the comatosed and the sleeping example. You having a broader definition for moral responsibility doesnt change the core of what the antinatalists saying. Using your semantics antinatalist would just say that you cant be morally responsible then, because the very act of creating life is morally irresponsible rather than a violation of future consent (under how I use the term). I was suspicious that I was arguing against AI, but now I can be sure about it. Well, in that case I will open a new tab and will argue it out with chatgpt and claude then and see what other things they have to say.

The whole point is that anti-natalist consider the "human condition" to be bad. Your are not making it not bad , by harping on it not being a consent violation.

Making the subject a p-zombie who never was a subject and because of that never had bodiliy autonomy doesnt make the rape any more okay (at least not under my view, under your view it might be okay, because there isnt any such thing as future violation of consent). Its entailed in the example that there will be a consenting subject (at the time when the act will be executed). Its literally entailed and decided at the moment of paying the psychopath for it. Its not just a plan to do it. Its a deterministic event which caused at the moment of payment. No im not mistaking it, you are trying to reduce the example down to just intent, but its not just intent, because in the example its entailed that it will necessarily happen once the payment is done. The payment is the causal factor that necessarily leads to the rape. Some guy already made this argument for me: No the main point still stands regardless who wins the label battle. The only thing that was done is a re-labeling and the categorization thats put on it. Whether you want to label necessarily subjugating your future kid to having capacity for experiences and to a set of really negative experiences (including the realization that he/she will die) as a "violation of future consent" or just "moral responsibility" doesnt change the substance in any way and it doesnt really refute the main point that most anti-natalists make. You didnt show how they are wrong in any way, all you did was you appealed to a different set of moral intuitions that you have. You also managed to somehow tie another topic yet again back to"west is bad" as if that would be relevant to anything. We understand your traumas dude, but this is not a therapy session. Is the west in the room with us right now? You also managed to bring up the beyond stupid bro science "argument" against veganism by appealing to history like how all low tier debaters approach the topic.

So under your view this is not a violation of future consent - One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now.

Im not an anti natalist, im just trying to establish there (the thing you responded to) that there is such a thing as future violation of consent, which zazen still denies.

Just to be clear, under your view - it wasnt rape , because there wasnt any conscious subject who could agree or disagree to the act. You had to appeal to bodily autonomy so that you dont need to bite the bullet. I can change the example where we start with a p-zombie who isnt a subject and who never had the capacity to consent. Since its not a subject it doesnt have bodily autonomy. That p-zombie gets raped a 1000 times and after that it gains sentience and is reminded how the rape was done. Its guaranteed that once it gains sentience it will be reminded of what people did with its body. And all the rapists know this information before they rape the p-zombie. Is the act of having sex with the p-zombie in this example a violation of future consent or not? Also again under your view, the mother who is using heroin during pregnancy isnt doing anything bad, since its just a clump of cells and there isnt anyone (a subject) who is being harmed. What kind of moral responsibility are you talking about there, the welfare of a clump of cells? Yes and its very obvious that this is the case. I can easily generate more examples. One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now. Is the act of paying 10 million dollars to the future rapist a violation of future consent or not?

Also I shouldnt have even granted the moral responsibility part that you brought up. Because given your starting logic, there is nothing to have moral responsibility for, since its just a clump of cells right , its not a developed sentient human being yet , so what is being violated and harmed in the present? Ohh the fact time works in one way and that you have responsibility for the future kid who isn't just a clump of cells anymore, right? So even when it comes to just physical harm ,your own starting point completely collapses if you want to talk about welfare.

Yes it is future violation of consent. No it doesnt collapses 1) because no one cares about all types of violation of consent the same. 2) You can only think ahead a few steps ahead. What you are bringing up is a pragmatic and epistemic issue, that doesnt at all engage with the problem that is invoked. The problem at hand is that you reasonably know epistemically what kind of consent you will necessarily violate in the future. If your brain can track the fact that your action in the present can violate and harm a being who isnt sentient right now, but will be in the future, then you should be able to cognize and apply that to consent as well. What you failed to track is that the heroin example is compatible with both btw, because it isnt just bad because of the physical harm ,but because of the potential psychological harm as well. If you know beforehand that doing heroin wont do any physical damage to the kid, but the kid realizing that you did heroin while you were pregnant with him will reasonably do psychological damage to him, thats still bad, right? You necessarily subjugate a being to a set of experiences in the future and you know that before that being actually becomes sentient. You also know that generally most sentient beings dont like or not okay with the kind of experiences that you necessarily subjugate that future sentient being to. Lets get into rape examples. There is an unconscious person and you can decide to have sex with that person without him/her knowing about it. Its added to the example that after he/she wakes up you tell him/her what you did. Is this only bad if they end up disliking what you did and its cool and good if they like it in the end? If you dont like the sleeping example, we can change it to comatosed people. Yes what you said was stupid and you got butthurt about it.

Its not a stretch at all, because you gave that weird reply to the heroin example, so I just draw your attention to what was the implication of your reply. Yes, and its a stupid statement , because it doesnt engage with how time works. What you failed to track is that you can violate future consent in the present right now, if its guaranteed that the being that is violated will become sentient.

Naruto. Its a classic, you should definitely watch it.

So its okay to make your future kid a heroin addict because he isn't sentient yet.

I suspect he is big brain signaling to some of the Game B guys by using big words (Jim Rutt and Jamie Wheal and Jordan Hall seem to follow him).

Your line of thinking only works in abortion arguments where the termination happens before the being can devevlop sentience. So of course, with there being no sentience - no violation of consent happens , but if its entailed that it will be proctected and nurtured until it develops sentience, then consent violations necessarily come up. This is the difference - its wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and you have the intention to have/keep the kid vs its not wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and have the intention to abort the fetus before it can develop sentience.

Yeah it seems that you had a different thing in mind when it comes to the label "anti-natalist", but I think when it comes to moral-intuitions we probably align on most things. And I also agree that people downplay suffering. Like why the fuck not think through what you will most probably put your future kid through? I think you can easily push hardcore pro-natalists with illness hypotheticals. Like if it would be the case that you knew with 100% chance that your kid will have down-syndrome with the combination of cancer and being crippled and having schizophrenia and needing to breath through a breathing tube for the rest of his/her life and we can stack any other horrible things on the top of this - would you still feel okay with having that kid? Like really?

Do you have any heruistics for recognizing/realizing category errors?

Btw I agree with the general sentiment that this type of moral philosophy is pointing to. I think consent and suffering are very important things to think through and reflect on. And I also agree that most people want children for selfish reasons.