@pacifiedfools Exactly, Pacified. I'm an existentialist in the Camusian tradition, with a dash of foolish optimism thrown in. Gary is a nihilist. The way that I look at it, we'll all be dead soon anyway, so we might as well strive to make our lives feel meaningful to us, so long as that doesn't entail harming others.
@VoxNeruda You seem to be implying that medicine is only needed if life has a purpose, but it doesn't have a purpose (according to you), and therefore we don't need medicine. I contend that both of these conclusions are false. Life has as many purposes as one wishes to assign to them, on top of default biological purposes, the highest being survival. Medicine isn't necessary, strictly speaking, but it is helpful in promoting health and extending life. You also seem to be suggesting that
@VoxNeruda purposefulness (that which is characterized by having a cause) is the foundation upon which all value judgments are to be made. All moral agents have some degree of causal efficacy, and therefore, again, there's plenty of purpose both within and around us. If you look under-the-covers of your own psyche, I think you'll find thoughts and feelings that suggest that your life feels as if it doesn't have a "purpose"--that is, that it doesn't feel meaningful to you. By meaningful, I mean
@VoxNeruda emotionally satisfying. Only you can make that ultimate judgment. But you can't make it for other moral agents. Many would (and do) dispute your conclusion that their lives don't have a purpose. Thus, you are refuted.
@tranquil87 After watching Gary's entire video, my head hurts. He's an incredibly angry human being who amplifies suffering. That doesn't detract from his arguments, which need to be taken seriously in their own right, but it's impossible to convince him of anything, given that he has already made up his mind. He doesn't argue, so much as he preaches. He fulminates his doctrine of nihilism to his parishioners. That's not philosophy. It's religion. And its destination is a ditch.
@EnglishGoethe ''He fulminates his doctrine of nihilism to his parishioners. That's not philosophy. It's religion''
A nihilistic religion. What on Earth next
''He's an incredibly angry human being who amplifies suffering.''
I personally find his videos consoling. I don't have to reflect on the billions of years prior to and after human existence with aghast. If people are troubled by his videos it means that his arguments have merit. Moreover, nobody's physically forcing anybody to watch them.
@trick0171 Why is it that some of the people who believe that this life is all that there is want to give up, or make angry YouTube videos that belittle straw men that they've constructed, rather than working to make the world better? I wish you happy holidays, too. (6 - end)
@trick0171 There's a lot to think about with regard to NDE's, and I can't hope to do justice to all of the many issues at play in a YouTube comment. Gary talks about having had an out-of-body experience. If that's true, then where's the evidence? I suspect he experienced perceptual distortion as the result of the drugs that he had been given, and that he interpreted that as an out-of-body experience, but that he had no out-of-body perception; i.e. it was just an hallucination, effectively. (5)
@trick0171 humble, rather than assuming that we already know the answers to all of the big questions, and that successive generations need only work out the details. Gary makes excellent observations about the nature of life, but his conclusions are grounded in the validity of his interpretations of those observations, which are biased by his values. He draws his conclusions as if he were omniscient. Fundamentally, I have epistemic problems with his premises, as I've vlogged about. (4)
@trick0171 questions, and understand limitations in our answer-seeking. We can't get outside of our own heads, and we're all biased and make errors all the time, which is why peer reviews and empirical hypothesis testing are so important. Even so, we're all only human. There's no golden answer book that we can consult. What we can know is restricted by the structure and dynamics of our nervous systems. Even the concept of "knowledge" is problematic. That's why I think that we should be (3)
@trick0171 Truth is a problematic concept. A scientific theory may fit all of the available evidence, but that doesn't make it "true," only useful. There could, at some point, be a datum that doesn't fit with the theory, but due to epistemic (e.g. perceptual) limitations, we may never encounter that datum, and thus conclude that the theory is "true," when it isn't. And we would have no way of knowing. Science is guesswork with progressive refinement. Philosophy helps us to ask cogent (2)
@trick0171 I think that YouTube has a weak commenting system. I'm happy to discuss this via e-mail, if you like. I am an analytic philosopher, with continental concerns, and you're right: epistemology is at the very heart of the debate about NDE's. The scientific method is vitally important, but let's be clear about its aims: description, prediction, and control. It's not about the truth, unless you subscribe to the pragmatic theory of truth. Science "works." It improves our lives. (1)
So I saw that Gary made a response to this video on his site and I started it: as expected, I was unable to watch more than a couple minutes. He started acting like a little girl: "I NEVER SAID THIS WHY ARE YOU LYING OH WHY WHY!" and then saying you deliberately, willfully misrepresented him. That's how evil you are and people like you (and me) should be the ones getting ALS.
@EnglishGoethe ''What motivates you in this life? What do you want to accomplish?''
I want to promote and advocate AN so that more people are discouraged from procreation by rational arguments. Every procreative act that is discouraged represents an entire human lifetime of vulnerability to pain and suffering that will not happen. I strongly suspect we are heading towards global disaster in the near future in any case. My latest video shows where I'm coming from as regards to this.
@DerivedEnergy Yes, I definitely agree. It includes what decisions you make about procreation. On a broader level, it's interesting to contemplate what might obtain were humans (but not other animals) no longer able to procreate due to a worldwide virus that rendered everyone sterile.
@xknowledgeisfreex likely to restrict human population growth (along with natural disasters) than an abstract philosophy. I'm quite confident that anti-natalism, as a moral ethic, will fail in the vast majority of cases. In poor countries, having many children benefits the parents. Rich countries have low birth rates. At best, anti-natalism is an interesting thought experiment. From an actionable perspective, it will never achieve its ultimate aim.
@xknowledgeisfreex You're very right. There's a lot to be said in favor of Maslow's hierarchy. Only in the very briefest, most recent, split femtosecond of geological time has our species had the leisure and technology to write books and philosophize. In the evolution of our species, the vast majority of time has been spent in the struggle to simply survive. (Many people still do.) Nature is cruel, so to speak. The carrying capacity of the planet, along with density-dependent inhibition, is more
@CosmicSeaman darkness of our own ignorance for answers. I personally think that something extraordinary is happening to NDE'rs. No one can explain it, and each theory has known counterexamples that it can't explain. Right now, all of the arguments that anyone can think of have been made, and we're at an impasse. I believe that NDE's can give people hope that our experiences here mean more than they appear to. Who doesn't need the courage to face a lifetime? It can be found in many places.
@CosmicSeaman from NDE reports, is of the inferential variety. This is much different from deductive syllogisms. We have to make reasonable guesses based on facts and whatever theories may be applicable to a particular problem. I think that William James somewhere wrote that there isn't proof of a life after death, but there's enough circumstantial evidence for any jury to hang a man seven times. Put another way, when we don't know, we resort to hopes, fears, and hunches as we grope in the
@CosmicSeaman Actually, you've posed an excellent epistemological thought experiment, similar to Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot, or the well-known Flying Spaghetti Monster. A reasonable approximation for what should count as knowledge is justified true belief. The word "true" is highly problematic, but if we focus on justification, you're right to wonder: Where's the evidence for your propositions? Evidence in support of the proposition that we may be more than our bodies, specifically
@17:20 What if your're wrong EnglishGoethe? What if we are actually alien spirits that arrived from planet Zinger around 10,000 BC, and the purpose of suffering is to tickle us? A very intelligent friend of mine thought of this.
@RationalSuicide Nearly one million individuals abandon life each year, worldwide. That's one every 40 seconds. Just more than one individual dies, exclusive of suicide, every single second. Everyone eventually dies. What matters is how you live.
@sWeepingAnd Wasn't it Homer who joked, "...for he was excellent above all men in theft and perjury?" Morality should enable human flourishing. It begins with survival, is fueled by the quest to thrive and the struggle to create, and achieves its majesty in the highest products of the mind, from airplanes to the general theory of relativity. One day, when we reflect back and ask ourselves, "What have you done with your life?" I want to have a really good and satisfying answer.
@DerivedEnergy From whose perspective would Steve Jobs's nonexistence have been "better?" If he hadn't existed, there wouldn't have been a "he" about whom to say: He would have been better off not to have existed. Imposition or deprivation isn't possible without sentient existence, in the first place. Which standard of value are you using to suggest that anti-natalism is "better" than pro-natalism? And, who is to judge? By what criteria can this debate be adjudicated?
@EnglishGoethe ''From whose perspective would Steve nonexistence have been "better?"
Do you regret that thousands upon thousands of Ethiopian children were created who subsequently starved to death during the mid 1980s famine? If they hadn't existed, there wouldn't have been a 'they' about whom to say: ''They would have been better off not to have existed.''
I'm a woman considering whether to have a baby or not at the start of the famine. I'm a woman with HIV who wants a baby. Advise me.
@xknowledgeisfreex You bet. Give me one week. For anyone else who may be interested, refer to library.nu: _The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self_ by Thomas Metzinger.
@IndifferentSky Of course, anti-natalism stands on its own as a philosophical position, independent of Gary. (Gary is a fun YouTube personality. Things would get a little dull if no one disagreed with him.) I disagree with David Benatar's arguments. I mention some problems in my video. Asking questions that can alleviate suffering, such as, "How can we prevent malaria?" is much more productive than advocating a position that natural selection apparently precludes.
@DerivedEnergy Harm is caused by exercising. It's painful, it can cause micro-tears in muscles, and it causes fatigue. There is also the risk of serious injury. But the long-term benefits are significant. What makes you so certain that the harms in life rob it of all meaning and necessitate that we engineer a "graceful exit?" Can you accept that there are pro-natalists, and respect their choice? If not, do you accept that anti-natalist advocacy won't stop procreation (in which case, why do it)?
@EnglishGoethe Harm is caused by exercising. There is also the risk of serious injury. But the long-term benefits are significant''
Those benefits are only perceived as a 'good' because there is a sentient being who would be deprived of those benefits if they were not experienced. I don't regret that the energy/matter contained in the inanimate objects I see around me are not configured in such a way as to manifest sentience. Deprivation and suffering can only occur in the presence of sentience.
@EnglishGoethe ''What makes you certain that the harms in life rob it of all meaning?''
Suffering and absurdity can be viewed as two separate arguments against the idea of perpetuating life. A life could ARGUABLY be utterly devoid of suffering - for example someone could spend their entire life inside a VR system - but this would not negate the absurdity of their existence as they wouldn't have missed out on anything if they hadn't been created. Their existence + happiness would be superfluous.
@EnglishGoethe ''Can you accept that there are pro-natalists''
Lol. Billions of them.
''..and respect their choice?''
No. They willfully create people who they know will suffer and die in the future in order to alleviate their own current deprivation states. There are no complaints from Mars that anyone is being deprived of anything or suffering. People are mostly deluded, irrational and agitated self reflexive manifestations of energy/matter in a meaningless and pitilessly indifferent universe.
@EnglishGoethe ''If not, do you accept that anti-natalist advocacy won't stop procreation (in which case, why do it)?''
AN advocacy has ALREADY effectively discouraged certain individuals from procreating who would otherwise likely have done so. Those are success stories of AN so far. I'm confident AN will gain more adherents in the future. There is some potential momentum to this endeavor. Perhaps when the world starts to really go pear shaped in the near future AN will attract more support.
"Perhaps when the world starts to really go pear shaped in the near future AN will attract more support."
When people are struggling for survival they don't have the time and muse to philosophize about such things as the meaning of life or make abstract considerations about the morality of procreation. No, during times of struggle and misery the will to survive only becomes stronger and more irrational, not less.
@xknowledgeisfreex ''When people are struggling for survival they don't have the time and muse to philosophize about such things as the meaning of life or make abstract considerations about the morality of procreation.''
Different people respond to different circumstances in different ways. AN can hardly decrease in popularity now can it. It's still a completely and utterly taboo subject that most people are not even aware of. The only way is up for AN and there are signs of some small movement.
@DerivedEnergy Have you read Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs? Steve died in an awful manner, at a young age. Would it have been better for him never to have existed?
@EnglishGoethe ''Would it have been better for him never to have existed?''
Baseline before conception = no deprivation and no suffering. This holds true for all. He needn't have suffered and he wouldn't have been deprived of a nanosecond of anything pleasant or 'meaningful' he may have experienced during his brief life. Less people = less suffering people. The prevention of his emergence into the world would have been better in terms of less suffering people being created on this planet.
@conferencereport that, by necessity, make certain assumptions about the world and either model behavior that we see around us, or reason out how we should behave in a particular situation. I suspect that most behavior is observationally modeled, and only some of it takes the slow path of being reasoned out. What assumptions we make and how we act on them to a large degree determine our outcomes. It's easy to destroy, but hard to create. Why not work together to support one another and improve
Here we go with you pretending that Inmendham invented this, it's HIS cult, and HIS death machine, and one video started out with you saying, "should Inmendham be allowed to decide for the rest of us?" as if that question has any basis in reality. No real thinker would make pose such a ridiculous question. Stop trying to dismiss a philosophy that people have authored books on by pretending Inmendham made it up and started a club. Please have some shred of integrity.
@conferencereport I don't claim any special knowledge, and I in no way consider myself "better" than my fellow beings. We're all in this together. Each of us is unique, and has a unique set of contributions to make. Personally, I'd appreciate challenges, such as: What about the "contributions" of sociopaths? Or Camus's, "Why not suicide?" "Better" and "worse" are moral judgments based on values grounded in emotions conditioned by life experiences and genes. At bottom, we're creative beings
@conferencereport All of us are a piece of the overall puzzle. As a boy, I read in the Tao Te Ching something that has always stayed with me: "Wanting to be right blinds people." I don't care about being right, but I do care very much about the "truth" (again, a problematic concept). I care about the answer to the big questions, the greatest one (in my estimation) being that of post-mortem survival (which can be phrased in many different ways, e.g. as the hard problem of consciousness).
@conferencereport I'm puzzled by your comments, but in creating any public video, I'm prepared for criticism and disagreement. I'm only one person expressing his opinions, based on his life experiences (direct and vicarious, e.g. through reading), critical thinking, and creativity. I consider every human being who contributes to the world and avoids causing harm to be a hero. (This obviously rules out sociopaths.) If you want to argue against my opinions, why not do so without personal attacks?
@xknowledgeisfreex Thanks for recommending _The Ego Tunnel_. I just read a summary, and it looks really good. I'm looking forward to reading the book.
@IdaMiaDot systematically considered the issues at play. At bottom, I can't persuade anyone to want to keep pursuing the "cheese" of an ostensibly elusive "happiness." I don't know why we're here--if there be a reason. But I do know that we are here, and that life is complex, ambiguous, and difficult. Shouldn't we work together to make our lives and world better? I'm with Camus. We can create meaning by being part of a community that resists absurdity and works to make life better. Join us.
@IdaMiaDot There are a lot of questions that we simply can't answer. But if we've decided to continue living, then why not make the most of it? We know that we'll all die one day, so why dwell on it to the exclusion of following our passions here and now? We should cultivate hope, not dread, unless we want to erode the quality of our lives, which would be immoral. I have serious problems with Gary's ethics. He may be well-intentioned, but I don't think that he has ever seriously and
@IdaMiaDot definitive way to tell. But there is one question that we can, and must, answer: Is our life worth living? And if we answer in the affirmative (everyone reading this has answered affirmatively, by default), then we have to ask: What's the best way for me to live? That's where self-examination, rationality, and passion come into play, within a particular linguistic community and culture (i.e. a life-world). Once we decide to play the game, shouldn't we aspire to play it well?
@IdaMiadot Thank you for asking a critically important set of related questions. Biological organisms don't live forever. They die. The question is: Are we conscious entities that enter into human existence in a way far more compelling than a virtual reality game--in a way that makes the experience seem frighteningly real, and is replete with suffering? Or, are we our bodies, and thus, in an absurd situation (in which case anti-natalism is a compelling conclusion)? In my view, there's no
@trick0171 and feel passionate about. I want to do some things in life that feel exciting and meaningful to me, while I'm young and the going is good. I recognize that we'll never know the answers to the deepest questions that we care about, so I think that it's important to stay grounded and try to enjoy the journey, when circumstances allow. Often, circumstances don't allow, and we suffer terribly. As they say--and remember, I'm an atheist--"There, but for the Grace of God, go I."
@trick0171 Science works. It's useful. But what's useful isn't necessarily what's "true," and I would really love to see everyone who uses the word "truth" define exactly what they mean by it. As I've said before, if anyone will truly educate themselves about epistemology, they'll see that reality is a lot more complicated and ambiguous than it seems on first blush. I could dedicate my entire life to refuting self-assured anti-natalists, but it would be a waste of time, according to what I value
@trick0171 is all that there is, and we are exactly what Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al., have been preaching all along: just another primate, with no purpose but to survive (wired into us by natural selection), destined for annihilation at death. If that's the case, let's acknowledge that it's based on an unprovable metaphysical assumption. And it's problematic. There is no room for "free" "will" in science, and yet all of us intuitively assume some form of it to be "true."
@trick0171 I can only speculate about that. But why speculate in the first place? Do we really have any reason to believe the veracity of NDE accounts, especially when the members of the National Academy of Sciences overwhelmingly consider such topics to be pseudoscientific? Scientists generally aren't philosophers. They seek to understand mechanisms--the "how?" questions. They don't generally address the "why?" questions, which are philosophical. Of course, it may be the case that this life is
@trick0171 I largely agree with you that the nature of our world leads to so much suffering that it seems like a hell. I've often said to a close friend of mine that I'm certain that there's a hell, because we're in it--right now. I understand suffering because, like you, I suffer. You're right to wonder, even in the most charitable interpretation that NDE's demonstrate that we're immortal: Why would we do this (incarnate into Homo sapiens sapiens) to ourselves, leading to an absurd situation?
@trick0171 What makes you think that I didn't get the short end of the stick? All serious philosophical work is an uphill battle. So is any goal worth achieving. Can you think of any great achievement that didn't involve struggle, and resistance from others? Science is about description, prediction, and control of empirical phenomena. It has nothing to say to us about truth, unless you buy into the pragmatic theory of truth. Science is useful, but that doesn't mean that its conclusions are
Why are your comments not attached to my own? And why are they in what seems like a disorganized progression? Maybe its just youtube doing some weird things but I did not even know you replied to me until I came back on my own because your comments do not seem to be a reply to my own.
Anyway, I too am a "philosopher" and understand the "uphill battle", but how you can relate this to the "short end of the stick" I am uncertain.
Also, I would not wish such short end on you. You seem like a nice enough guy, it is your epistemological standards that I would suggest as faulty. Especially if you do not regard the scientific method as one of the most important epistemological methodologies.
And no, I am not one that thinks science the end all be all. I think both induction and deduction important.
When you say things like "veracity of NDE accounts", I would suggest to you that such anecdotal evidence is entirely unreliable, and that could just as easily replace your words with "veracity of alien abduction accounts", "veracity of big foot and lockness monster accounts" etc etc.
"There is no room for "free" "will" in science, and yet all of us intuitively assume some form of it to be "true.""
I do not. In fact, I am currently writing a book explaining why it is incoherent. It is not only incompatible with science, it is philosophically incoherent as well. It is important for us to understand this part about reality. There is no free will.
" I could dedicate my entire life to refuting self-assured anti-natalists, but it would be a waste of time, according to what I value"
It is what you "value" that is in question by the antinatalists. Noone is asking you to dedicate your life refuting antinatalists. All that is being asked is that if you make statements against antinatalist philosophy, that you back up such statements with arguments. Either that or do not make such statements.
Of course if you are not an analytic philosopher, it all funnels down to base epistemological disagreements. Also if you consider anecdotal evidence as reliable or trustworthy, then I would suggest there is a large problem that needs to be addressed.
Just some thoughts. I hope they do not come off as attacking because that is not my intention.
@itzmarko1 suffering in the world by attacking other people for having viewpoints at odds with one's own? The material world doesn't seem to be a complete failure to me, but an adventure. We've developed space flight, global communication, jaw-dropping cities, and such incredible ideas. Isn't the joy of discovery and the opportunity to find love enough to merit keeping this "experiment" going, despite the risks? We're all in this life together, and together, we can make it better.
@itzmarko1 that I "know" a proposition to be "true" (unless it's a logical deduction or mathematica proof, but in those cases, how does it "correspond" with "reality?"). In the messiness and ambiguity of life, everything is open to interpretation. While I agree that there is a great deal of suffering, I must disagree that there is no basis for values, and that making futile polemical videos is a good way to spend one's life. There are better and worse ways to live. Why add to the level of
@EnglishGoethe ''In the messiness and ambiguity of life, everything is open to interpretation.''
If not X then not Y and not Z. That's as clean cut as you can get. I don't create future corpses. I'm decaying and agitated matter and I accept that and act accordingly.
@itzmarko1 controversies in epistemology regarding what what we even mean by "truth." Kant understood that the structure of our nervous system limits what we can perceive. There are fundamental boundaries past which we can't penetrate. My brain's performance characteristics severely limit my understanding of the intricacies of the general theory of relativity. I'm wrong all the time about simple things (as are most people, a lot of the time). My approach is to be humble rather than to declare
@itzmarko1 I promise you that if you study philosophy, or just keep asking questions of philosophers, you'll see for yourself that what might seem "obvious" on the surface is very complicated and ambiguous. Our brains are blunt instruments for perceiving and making inferences about reality. Both mathematics and science are useful--they "work." They improve the longevity and quality of our lives, on the whole. But neither, properly speaking, tells us the "truth." There are very serious
@itzmarko1 Marko, you said that Gary's argument has to do with what the objective truth is, and not our subjective interpretation. The problem is that unless you're dealing with deductive proofs in logic or mathematical proofs (both of which are based on axioms and inviolable rules of transformation), it's not possible to arrive at an "objective" truth. "Truth" is a very problematic concept in philosophy, which is why a whole branch of philosophy--epistemology--is devoted to it.
At which point in the evolutionary scale did our ancestors start living forever? When they were fish? Did the first insect live forever? We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees dating back 6 million years; do chimpanzees live forever? If not; then why?
Why would humans be the only biological life that can live forever?
agree with you regarding the irony of gary's tendency to inflict injury/suffering on others w/ the nature of his videos/comments..seems the same tendency can be observed among many so-called antinatalists...the back and forth commentary, whether via video or chat, reveals this..much personal insult and vulgarity is dished out..seems to be a constant presence of aggression..hope your video will help to make everyone more aware of this..seems more mutual respect can only benefit future discussion
He asked for an argument and you give him OOBE's, NDE's, and reincarnation? Is that really the path you want to take? These are pseudoscientific topics that hold all of the burden of proof. They are not accepted by the scientific community, and for good reason. And philosophically they are not any better. Even if we assumed they were true, you are not giving a meaning to them. A purpose for them.
Even if the speculation of "reincarnating" to suffer in order to "make things real" was true, we would be talking about such a situation where people would feel they need to put them-self through horrors just to "feel". What would be the point of such and absurd situation? That would be a hell...not something to desire. In such case we would need to look to end such a system as well.
Also, he is not really wishing harms on to you, but rather just making a point. The point being if you think harms should be propagated by the creation of new life, then it should be you that should get the brunt of them. The point is that maybe you would think differently if it was you that got the brunt. The short stick if you will. You will notice he will never "wish harms" on anyone disagreeing with another topic, just the topic of the point in creating new harms in the world.
Anyway, both scientifically and philosophically you have an uphill battle if these are the points you are bringing to the table. Good luck on them. I hope you can prove them (or even show them likely...which I would suggest they are rationally problematic concepts) and show how they derive a real purpose and meaning.
This is without doubt one of the most facile self-indulgent videos I have seen on Youtube for a long long time. You make no rational argument at all and your lauded sense of purpose ultimately grounds out on the vain and gutless hope of an atheistic afterlife (how does that work, exactly?) You apparently have no notion of just how supercilious you are coming across, both in your presentation and in the content of this video. (cont.)
@conferencereport (cont.) Does Solomon say anything about Pride and Vanity at all? You might want to check that out. I'm really pleased to hear you've self-actualised, I'm sure that's very nice for you. Shame that baby in the intensive care ward didn't get the opportunity.
@conferencereport FUCK OFF YOU ARROGANT SELF-RIGHTOUS CUNT, go on with your witch hunt, you silly cunt. You gotta keep your vain, gutless, supercilious comments to yourself, EnglishGoethe made a fantastic video, with many rational arguments your just a hater............
Finding meaning and actualizing it like you have just pointed out is subjective and is still irrelevant to the argument. Its about what the truth,. not how we choose to view it. The material world in it's essence is complete failure in any logical sense. Recognizing something and feeling bad for it is not enough Steve. By perpetuating life over and over is more sorrowful because people are still continuing the suffering...
The material world is a failure compared to what? You cannot say that something is a failure when you have nothing to compare it to, because failure is relative.
@trick0171 "true." Newton's laws "work," too, under certain conditions. Science makes useful approximations, but reality is so complicated and ambiguous that it's extremely difficult to solve pressing problems, e.g. developing a cure for cancers. Unfortunately, there is no golden answer book that we can consult to learn the truth. We're on a journey of discovery. Some find this absurd (especially due to suffering, which is often horrific), and others, e.g. Steve Jobs, go on despite it.
You're basically an existentialist. Mendy seems like a nnihilist to me
pacifiedfools 1 month ago
@pacifiedfools Exactly, Pacified. I'm an existentialist in the Camusian tradition, with a dash of foolish optimism thrown in. Gary is a nihilist. The way that I look at it, we'll all be dead soon anyway, so we might as well strive to make our lives feel meaningful to us, so long as that doesn't entail harming others.
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
If life had purpose, there would be no such thing as a pre-med degree.
Sergeant, have this man shot.
VoxNeruda 1 month ago
@VoxNeruda You seem to be implying that medicine is only needed if life has a purpose, but it doesn't have a purpose (according to you), and therefore we don't need medicine. I contend that both of these conclusions are false. Life has as many purposes as one wishes to assign to them, on top of default biological purposes, the highest being survival. Medicine isn't necessary, strictly speaking, but it is helpful in promoting health and extending life. You also seem to be suggesting that
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@VoxNeruda purposefulness (that which is characterized by having a cause) is the foundation upon which all value judgments are to be made. All moral agents have some degree of causal efficacy, and therefore, again, there's plenty of purpose both within and around us. If you look under-the-covers of your own psyche, I think you'll find thoughts and feelings that suggest that your life feels as if it doesn't have a "purpose"--that is, that it doesn't feel meaningful to you. By meaningful, I mean
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@VoxNeruda emotionally satisfying. Only you can make that ultimate judgment. But you can't make it for other moral agents. Many would (and do) dispute your conclusion that their lives don't have a purpose. Thus, you are refuted.
EnglishGoethe 1 month ago
@EnglishGoethe No sense of humout [sic].
Here at Wetlands Remediation, life is purposed and so is medicine.
Medicals are inducted directly into Free Clinic and set to learning on the job.
There is no such thing as "pre-med".
The system you espouse is just an inefficient culling of a medical cattle-call.
Inefficiency is less than nothing and absurdly meaningless.
BTW, you really shouldn't be speaking- it distracts the squad and they might muff the shot.
VoxNeruda 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy Can you send me a message and give me the link to the "Goodbye Cruel World" video that you mentioned? Thanks.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@tranquil87 After watching Gary's entire video, my head hurts. He's an incredibly angry human being who amplifies suffering. That doesn't detract from his arguments, which need to be taken seriously in their own right, but it's impossible to convince him of anything, given that he has already made up his mind. He doesn't argue, so much as he preaches. He fulminates his doctrine of nihilism to his parishioners. That's not philosophy. It's religion. And its destination is a ditch.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''He fulminates his doctrine of nihilism to his parishioners. That's not philosophy. It's religion''
A nihilistic religion. What on Earth next
''He's an incredibly angry human being who amplifies suffering.''
I personally find his videos consoling. I don't have to reflect on the billions of years prior to and after human existence with aghast. If people are troubled by his videos it means that his arguments have merit. Moreover, nobody's physically forcing anybody to watch them.
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
@trick0171 Why is it that some of the people who believe that this life is all that there is want to give up, or make angry YouTube videos that belittle straw men that they've constructed, rather than working to make the world better? I wish you happy holidays, too. (6 - end)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 There's a lot to think about with regard to NDE's, and I can't hope to do justice to all of the many issues at play in a YouTube comment. Gary talks about having had an out-of-body experience. If that's true, then where's the evidence? I suspect he experienced perceptual distortion as the result of the drugs that he had been given, and that he interpreted that as an out-of-body experience, but that he had no out-of-body perception; i.e. it was just an hallucination, effectively. (5)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 humble, rather than assuming that we already know the answers to all of the big questions, and that successive generations need only work out the details. Gary makes excellent observations about the nature of life, but his conclusions are grounded in the validity of his interpretations of those observations, which are biased by his values. He draws his conclusions as if he were omniscient. Fundamentally, I have epistemic problems with his premises, as I've vlogged about. (4)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 questions, and understand limitations in our answer-seeking. We can't get outside of our own heads, and we're all biased and make errors all the time, which is why peer reviews and empirical hypothesis testing are so important. Even so, we're all only human. There's no golden answer book that we can consult. What we can know is restricted by the structure and dynamics of our nervous systems. Even the concept of "knowledge" is problematic. That's why I think that we should be (3)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 Truth is a problematic concept. A scientific theory may fit all of the available evidence, but that doesn't make it "true," only useful. There could, at some point, be a datum that doesn't fit with the theory, but due to epistemic (e.g. perceptual) limitations, we may never encounter that datum, and thus conclude that the theory is "true," when it isn't. And we would have no way of knowing. Science is guesswork with progressive refinement. Philosophy helps us to ask cogent (2)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 I think that YouTube has a weak commenting system. I'm happy to discuss this via e-mail, if you like. I am an analytic philosopher, with continental concerns, and you're right: epistemology is at the very heart of the debate about NDE's. The scientific method is vitally important, but let's be clear about its aims: description, prediction, and control. It's not about the truth, unless you subscribe to the pragmatic theory of truth. Science "works." It improves our lives. (1)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
So I saw that Gary made a response to this video on his site and I started it: as expected, I was unable to watch more than a couple minutes. He started acting like a little girl: "I NEVER SAID THIS WHY ARE YOU LYING OH WHY WHY!" and then saying you deliberately, willfully misrepresented him. That's how evil you are and people like you (and me) should be the ones getting ALS.
tranquil87 2 months ago
Wow, I can't believe conferencereport left those comments. He's not the type of person I thought he was.
Think well about what you are trying to accomplish here, Steve.
tranquil87 2 months ago
This was a great video. Nice job!
ScottyRules33 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy What motivates you in this life? What do you want to accomplish?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''What motivates you in this life? What do you want to accomplish?''
I want to promote and advocate AN so that more people are discouraged from procreation by rational arguments. Every procreative act that is discouraged represents an entire human lifetime of vulnerability to pain and suffering that will not happen. I strongly suspect we are heading towards global disaster in the near future in any case. My latest video shows where I'm coming from as regards to this.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Yes, I definitely agree. It includes what decisions you make about procreation. On a broader level, it's interesting to contemplate what might obtain were humans (but not other animals) no longer able to procreate due to a worldwide virus that rendered everyone sterile.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex likely to restrict human population growth (along with natural disasters) than an abstract philosophy. I'm quite confident that anti-natalism, as a moral ethic, will fail in the vast majority of cases. In poor countries, having many children benefits the parents. Rich countries have low birth rates. At best, anti-natalism is an interesting thought experiment. From an actionable perspective, it will never achieve its ultimate aim.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex You're very right. There's a lot to be said in favor of Maslow's hierarchy. Only in the very briefest, most recent, split femtosecond of geological time has our species had the leisure and technology to write books and philosophize. In the evolution of our species, the vast majority of time has been spent in the struggle to simply survive. (Many people still do.) Nature is cruel, so to speak. The carrying capacity of the planet, along with density-dependent inhibition, is more
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@CosmicSeaman darkness of our own ignorance for answers. I personally think that something extraordinary is happening to NDE'rs. No one can explain it, and each theory has known counterexamples that it can't explain. Right now, all of the arguments that anyone can think of have been made, and we're at an impasse. I believe that NDE's can give people hope that our experiences here mean more than they appear to. Who doesn't need the courage to face a lifetime? It can be found in many places.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@CosmicSeaman from NDE reports, is of the inferential variety. This is much different from deductive syllogisms. We have to make reasonable guesses based on facts and whatever theories may be applicable to a particular problem. I think that William James somewhere wrote that there isn't proof of a life after death, but there's enough circumstantial evidence for any jury to hang a man seven times. Put another way, when we don't know, we resort to hopes, fears, and hunches as we grope in the
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@CosmicSeaman Actually, you've posed an excellent epistemological thought experiment, similar to Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot, or the well-known Flying Spaghetti Monster. A reasonable approximation for what should count as knowledge is justified true belief. The word "true" is highly problematic, but if we focus on justification, you're right to wonder: Where's the evidence for your propositions? Evidence in support of the proposition that we may be more than our bodies, specifically
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@CosmicSeaman Are you a Scientologist?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@17:20 What if your're wrong EnglishGoethe? What if we are actually alien spirits that arrived from planet Zinger around 10,000 BC, and the purpose of suffering is to tickle us? A very intelligent friend of mine thought of this.
CosmicSeaman 2 months ago
@GeoSchadenfreude The book is: _The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology_ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@RationalSuicide Nearly one million individuals abandon life each year, worldwide. That's one every 40 seconds. Just more than one individual dies, exclusive of suicide, every single second. Everyone eventually dies. What matters is how you live.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''What matters is how you live.''
Including what decisions you make pertaining to procreation.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Why, then, do you choose to go on?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''Why, then, do you choose to go on?''
See my Goodbye Cruel World video if you're interested. It's 5 mins long.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@sWeepingAnd Wasn't it Homer who joked, "...for he was excellent above all men in theft and perjury?" Morality should enable human flourishing. It begins with survival, is fueled by the quest to thrive and the struggle to create, and achieves its majesty in the highest products of the mind, from airplanes to the general theory of relativity. One day, when we reflect back and ask ourselves, "What have you done with your life?" I want to have a really good and satisfying answer.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy From whose perspective would Steve Jobs's nonexistence have been "better?" If he hadn't existed, there wouldn't have been a "he" about whom to say: He would have been better off not to have existed. Imposition or deprivation isn't possible without sentient existence, in the first place. Which standard of value are you using to suggest that anti-natalism is "better" than pro-natalism? And, who is to judge? By what criteria can this debate be adjudicated?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EnglishGoethe ''From whose perspective would Steve nonexistence have been "better?"
Do you regret that thousands upon thousands of Ethiopian children were created who subsequently starved to death during the mid 1980s famine? If they hadn't existed, there wouldn't have been a 'they' about whom to say: ''They would have been better off not to have existed.''
I'm a woman considering whether to have a baby or not at the start of the famine. I'm a woman with HIV who wants a baby. Advise me.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@sWeepingsAnd Awesome! If you're going to be creepy, aim for the moon. ;-)
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe If you're going to be a killer, kill as many as you can! :)
sWeepingsAnd 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex You bet. Give me one week. For anyone else who may be interested, refer to library.nu: _The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self_ by Thomas Metzinger.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@IndifferentSky Of course, anti-natalism stands on its own as a philosophical position, independent of Gary. (Gary is a fun YouTube personality. Things would get a little dull if no one disagreed with him.) I disagree with David Benatar's arguments. I mention some problems in my video. Asking questions that can alleviate suffering, such as, "How can we prevent malaria?" is much more productive than advocating a position that natural selection apparently precludes.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
Dude, this video is like, retarded.
longcatisloooooong 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Harm is caused by exercising. It's painful, it can cause micro-tears in muscles, and it causes fatigue. There is also the risk of serious injury. But the long-term benefits are significant. What makes you so certain that the harms in life rob it of all meaning and necessitate that we engineer a "graceful exit?" Can you accept that there are pro-natalists, and respect their choice? If not, do you accept that anti-natalist advocacy won't stop procreation (in which case, why do it)?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe Harm is caused by exercising. There is also the risk of serious injury. But the long-term benefits are significant''
Those benefits are only perceived as a 'good' because there is a sentient being who would be deprived of those benefits if they were not experienced. I don't regret that the energy/matter contained in the inanimate objects I see around me are not configured in such a way as to manifest sentience. Deprivation and suffering can only occur in the presence of sentience.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EnglishGoethe ''What makes you certain that the harms in life rob it of all meaning?''
Suffering and absurdity can be viewed as two separate arguments against the idea of perpetuating life. A life could ARGUABLY be utterly devoid of suffering - for example someone could spend their entire life inside a VR system - but this would not negate the absurdity of their existence as they wouldn't have missed out on anything if they hadn't been created. Their existence + happiness would be superfluous.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''Can you accept that there are pro-natalists''
Lol. Billions of them.
''..and respect their choice?''
No. They willfully create people who they know will suffer and die in the future in order to alleviate their own current deprivation states. There are no complaints from Mars that anyone is being deprived of anything or suffering. People are mostly deluded, irrational and agitated self reflexive manifestations of energy/matter in a meaningless and pitilessly indifferent universe.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''If not, do you accept that anti-natalist advocacy won't stop procreation (in which case, why do it)?''
AN advocacy has ALREADY effectively discouraged certain individuals from procreating who would otherwise likely have done so. Those are success stories of AN so far. I'm confident AN will gain more adherents in the future. There is some potential momentum to this endeavor. Perhaps when the world starts to really go pear shaped in the near future AN will attract more support.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy
"Perhaps when the world starts to really go pear shaped in the near future AN will attract more support."
When people are struggling for survival they don't have the time and muse to philosophize about such things as the meaning of life or make abstract considerations about the morality of procreation. No, during times of struggle and misery the will to survive only becomes stronger and more irrational, not less.
xknowledgeisfreex 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex ''When people are struggling for survival they don't have the time and muse to philosophize about such things as the meaning of life or make abstract considerations about the morality of procreation.''
Different people respond to different circumstances in different ways. AN can hardly decrease in popularity now can it. It's still a completely and utterly taboo subject that most people are not even aware of. The only way is up for AN and there are signs of some small movement.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Have you read Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs? Steve died in an awful manner, at a young age. Would it have been better for him never to have existed?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''Would it have been better for him never to have existed?''
Baseline before conception = no deprivation and no suffering. This holds true for all. He needn't have suffered and he wouldn't have been deprived of a nanosecond of anything pleasant or 'meaningful' he may have experienced during his brief life. Less people = less suffering people. The prevention of his emergence into the world would have been better in terms of less suffering people being created on this planet.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@conferencereport the world, rather than trying to tear others down?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@conferencereport that, by necessity, make certain assumptions about the world and either model behavior that we see around us, or reason out how we should behave in a particular situation. I suspect that most behavior is observationally modeled, and only some of it takes the slow path of being reasoned out. What assumptions we make and how we act on them to a large degree determine our outcomes. It's easy to destroy, but hard to create. Why not work together to support one another and improve
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
Here we go with you pretending that Inmendham invented this, it's HIS cult, and HIS death machine, and one video started out with you saying, "should Inmendham be allowed to decide for the rest of us?" as if that question has any basis in reality. No real thinker would make pose such a ridiculous question. Stop trying to dismiss a philosophy that people have authored books on by pretending Inmendham made it up and started a club. Please have some shred of integrity.
IndifferentSky 2 months ago
@conferencereport I don't claim any special knowledge, and I in no way consider myself "better" than my fellow beings. We're all in this together. Each of us is unique, and has a unique set of contributions to make. Personally, I'd appreciate challenges, such as: What about the "contributions" of sociopaths? Or Camus's, "Why not suicide?" "Better" and "worse" are moral judgments based on values grounded in emotions conditioned by life experiences and genes. At bottom, we're creative beings
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@conferencereport All of us are a piece of the overall puzzle. As a boy, I read in the Tao Te Ching something that has always stayed with me: "Wanting to be right blinds people." I don't care about being right, but I do care very much about the "truth" (again, a problematic concept). I care about the answer to the big questions, the greatest one (in my estimation) being that of post-mortem survival (which can be phrased in many different ways, e.g. as the hard problem of consciousness).
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@conferencereport I'm puzzled by your comments, but in creating any public video, I'm prepared for criticism and disagreement. I'm only one person expressing his opinions, based on his life experiences (direct and vicarious, e.g. through reading), critical thinking, and creativity. I consider every human being who contributes to the world and avoids causing harm to be a hero. (This obviously rules out sociopaths.) If you want to argue against my opinions, why not do so without personal attacks?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''I consider every human being who contributes to the world and AVOIDS CAUSING HARM to be a hero.''
You should be advocating AN then.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
you're one of the creepiest people I've ever seen on youtube.
sWeepingsAnd 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Thanks for recommending _The Ego Tunnel_. I just read a summary, and it looks really good. I'm looking forward to reading the book.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe
Nice. I would love to hear your thoughts on it once you've read it.
xknowledgeisfreex 2 months ago
@IdaMiaDot systematically considered the issues at play. At bottom, I can't persuade anyone to want to keep pursuing the "cheese" of an ostensibly elusive "happiness." I don't know why we're here--if there be a reason. But I do know that we are here, and that life is complex, ambiguous, and difficult. Shouldn't we work together to make our lives and world better? I'm with Camus. We can create meaning by being part of a community that resists absurdity and works to make life better. Join us.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''We can create meaning by being part of a community that RESISTS ABSURDITY and works to make life better.''
You mean take solace in delusions and superstitions so that one can justify helping to perpetuate the absurdity and suffering.
''make life better''...impossible. One can only make it less worse. Baseline = no deprivation and no suffering.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@IdaMiaDot There are a lot of questions that we simply can't answer. But if we've decided to continue living, then why not make the most of it? We know that we'll all die one day, so why dwell on it to the exclusion of following our passions here and now? We should cultivate hope, not dread, unless we want to erode the quality of our lives, which would be immoral. I have serious problems with Gary's ethics. He may be well-intentioned, but I don't think that he has ever seriously and
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@IdaMiaDot definitive way to tell. But there is one question that we can, and must, answer: Is our life worth living? And if we answer in the affirmative (everyone reading this has answered affirmatively, by default), then we have to ask: What's the best way for me to live? That's where self-examination, rationality, and passion come into play, within a particular linguistic community and culture (i.e. a life-world). Once we decide to play the game, shouldn't we aspire to play it well?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@IdaMiadot Thank you for asking a critically important set of related questions. Biological organisms don't live forever. They die. The question is: Are we conscious entities that enter into human existence in a way far more compelling than a virtual reality game--in a way that makes the experience seem frighteningly real, and is replete with suffering? Or, are we our bodies, and thus, in an absurd situation (in which case anti-natalism is a compelling conclusion)? In my view, there's no
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 and feel passionate about. I want to do some things in life that feel exciting and meaningful to me, while I'm young and the going is good. I recognize that we'll never know the answers to the deepest questions that we care about, so I think that it's important to stay grounded and try to enjoy the journey, when circumstances allow. Often, circumstances don't allow, and we suffer terribly. As they say--and remember, I'm an atheist--"There, but for the Grace of God, go I."
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 Science works. It's useful. But what's useful isn't necessarily what's "true," and I would really love to see everyone who uses the word "truth" define exactly what they mean by it. As I've said before, if anyone will truly educate themselves about epistemology, they'll see that reality is a lot more complicated and ambiguous than it seems on first blush. I could dedicate my entire life to refuting self-assured anti-natalists, but it would be a waste of time, according to what I value
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 is all that there is, and we are exactly what Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al., have been preaching all along: just another primate, with no purpose but to survive (wired into us by natural selection), destined for annihilation at death. If that's the case, let's acknowledge that it's based on an unprovable metaphysical assumption. And it's problematic. There is no room for "free" "will" in science, and yet all of us intuitively assume some form of it to be "true."
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 I can only speculate about that. But why speculate in the first place? Do we really have any reason to believe the veracity of NDE accounts, especially when the members of the National Academy of Sciences overwhelmingly consider such topics to be pseudoscientific? Scientists generally aren't philosophers. They seek to understand mechanisms--the "how?" questions. They don't generally address the "why?" questions, which are philosophical. Of course, it may be the case that this life is
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 I largely agree with you that the nature of our world leads to so much suffering that it seems like a hell. I've often said to a close friend of mine that I'm certain that there's a hell, because we're in it--right now. I understand suffering because, like you, I suffer. You're right to wonder, even in the most charitable interpretation that NDE's demonstrate that we're immortal: Why would we do this (incarnate into Homo sapiens sapiens) to ourselves, leading to an absurd situation?
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@trick0171 What makes you think that I didn't get the short end of the stick? All serious philosophical work is an uphill battle. So is any goal worth achieving. Can you think of any great achievement that didn't involve struggle, and resistance from others? Science is about description, prediction, and control of empirical phenomena. It has nothing to say to us about truth, unless you buy into the pragmatic theory of truth. Science is useful, but that doesn't mean that its conclusions are
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe
Why are your comments not attached to my own? And why are they in what seems like a disorganized progression? Maybe its just youtube doing some weird things but I did not even know you replied to me until I came back on my own because your comments do not seem to be a reply to my own.
Anyway, I too am a "philosopher" and understand the "uphill battle", but how you can relate this to the "short end of the stick" I am uncertain.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 2 months ago
Also, I would not wish such short end on you. You seem like a nice enough guy, it is your epistemological standards that I would suggest as faulty. Especially if you do not regard the scientific method as one of the most important epistemological methodologies.
And no, I am not one that thinks science the end all be all. I think both induction and deduction important.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 2 months ago
When you say things like "veracity of NDE accounts", I would suggest to you that such anecdotal evidence is entirely unreliable, and that could just as easily replace your words with "veracity of alien abduction accounts", "veracity of big foot and lockness monster accounts" etc etc.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 2 months ago
"There is no room for "free" "will" in science, and yet all of us intuitively assume some form of it to be "true.""
I do not. In fact, I am currently writing a book explaining why it is incoherent. It is not only incompatible with science, it is philosophically incoherent as well. It is important for us to understand this part about reality. There is no free will.
(MORE 4)
trick0171 2 months ago
" I could dedicate my entire life to refuting self-assured anti-natalists, but it would be a waste of time, according to what I value"
It is what you "value" that is in question by the antinatalists. Noone is asking you to dedicate your life refuting antinatalists. All that is being asked is that if you make statements against antinatalist philosophy, that you back up such statements with arguments. Either that or do not make such statements.
(MORE 5)
trick0171 2 months ago
Of course if you are not an analytic philosopher, it all funnels down to base epistemological disagreements. Also if you consider anecdotal evidence as reliable or trustworthy, then I would suggest there is a large problem that needs to be addressed.
Just some thoughts. I hope they do not come off as attacking because that is not my intention.
Hope you have a good holiday.
Take care,
Trick
(END 6)
trick0171 2 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex A Scientologist? LOL! No. I'm a philosopher.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@itzmarko1 suffering in the world by attacking other people for having viewpoints at odds with one's own? The material world doesn't seem to be a complete failure to me, but an adventure. We've developed space flight, global communication, jaw-dropping cities, and such incredible ideas. Isn't the joy of discovery and the opportunity to find love enough to merit keeping this "experiment" going, despite the risks? We're all in this life together, and together, we can make it better.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@itzmarko1 that I "know" a proposition to be "true" (unless it's a logical deduction or mathematica proof, but in those cases, how does it "correspond" with "reality?"). In the messiness and ambiguity of life, everything is open to interpretation. While I agree that there is a great deal of suffering, I must disagree that there is no basis for values, and that making futile polemical videos is a good way to spend one's life. There are better and worse ways to live. Why add to the level of
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@EnglishGoethe ''In the messiness and ambiguity of life, everything is open to interpretation.''
If not X then not Y and not Z. That's as clean cut as you can get. I don't create future corpses. I'm decaying and agitated matter and I accept that and act accordingly.
DerivedEnergy 2 months ago
@itzmarko1 controversies in epistemology regarding what what we even mean by "truth." Kant understood that the structure of our nervous system limits what we can perceive. There are fundamental boundaries past which we can't penetrate. My brain's performance characteristics severely limit my understanding of the intricacies of the general theory of relativity. I'm wrong all the time about simple things (as are most people, a lot of the time). My approach is to be humble rather than to declare
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
Are you a Scientologist?
xknowledgeisfreex 2 months ago
@itzmarko1 I promise you that if you study philosophy, or just keep asking questions of philosophers, you'll see for yourself that what might seem "obvious" on the surface is very complicated and ambiguous. Our brains are blunt instruments for perceiving and making inferences about reality. Both mathematics and science are useful--they "work." They improve the longevity and quality of our lives, on the whole. But neither, properly speaking, tells us the "truth." There are very serious
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
@itzmarko1 Marko, you said that Gary's argument has to do with what the objective truth is, and not our subjective interpretation. The problem is that unless you're dealing with deductive proofs in logic or mathematical proofs (both of which are based on axioms and inviolable rules of transformation), it's not possible to arrive at an "objective" truth. "Truth" is a very problematic concept in philosophy, which is why a whole branch of philosophy--epistemology--is devoted to it.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago
There is a reasonable explanation for OBE's, that has been well confirmed by experimentation in which these experiences can be artificially induced.
Read Thomas Metzinger's "the ego tunnel".
xknowledgeisfreex 2 months ago
I'd love to hear the outer body experience argument.
RadicalAwesomeness 2 months ago
At which point in the evolutionary scale did our ancestors start living forever? When they were fish? Did the first insect live forever? We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees dating back 6 million years; do chimpanzees live forever? If not; then why?
Why would humans be the only biological life that can live forever?
IdaMiaDot 2 months ago
agree with you regarding the irony of gary's tendency to inflict injury/suffering on others w/ the nature of his videos/comments..seems the same tendency can be observed among many so-called antinatalists...the back and forth commentary, whether via video or chat, reveals this..much personal insult and vulgarity is dished out..seems to be a constant presence of aggression..hope your video will help to make everyone more aware of this..seems more mutual respect can only benefit future discussion
VIRTLANTIS 2 months ago
He asked for an argument and you give him OOBE's, NDE's, and reincarnation? Is that really the path you want to take? These are pseudoscientific topics that hold all of the burden of proof. They are not accepted by the scientific community, and for good reason. And philosophically they are not any better. Even if we assumed they were true, you are not giving a meaning to them. A purpose for them.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 2 months ago
Even if the speculation of "reincarnating" to suffer in order to "make things real" was true, we would be talking about such a situation where people would feel they need to put them-self through horrors just to "feel". What would be the point of such and absurd situation? That would be a hell...not something to desire. In such case we would need to look to end such a system as well.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 2 months ago
Also, he is not really wishing harms on to you, but rather just making a point. The point being if you think harms should be propagated by the creation of new life, then it should be you that should get the brunt of them. The point is that maybe you would think differently if it was you that got the brunt. The short stick if you will. You will notice he will never "wish harms" on anyone disagreeing with another topic, just the topic of the point in creating new harms in the world.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 2 months ago
Anyway, both scientifically and philosophically you have an uphill battle if these are the points you are bringing to the table. Good luck on them. I hope you can prove them (or even show them likely...which I would suggest they are rationally problematic concepts) and show how they derive a real purpose and meaning.
Take care,
'Trick
(END 4)
trick0171 2 months ago
This is without doubt one of the most facile self-indulgent videos I have seen on Youtube for a long long time. You make no rational argument at all and your lauded sense of purpose ultimately grounds out on the vain and gutless hope of an atheistic afterlife (how does that work, exactly?) You apparently have no notion of just how supercilious you are coming across, both in your presentation and in the content of this video. (cont.)
conferencereport 2 months ago
@conferencereport (cont.) Does Solomon say anything about Pride and Vanity at all? You might want to check that out. I'm really pleased to hear you've self-actualised, I'm sure that's very nice for you. Shame that baby in the intensive care ward didn't get the opportunity.
conferencereport 2 months ago
@conferencereport FUCK OFF YOU ARROGANT SELF-RIGHTOUS CUNT, go on with your witch hunt, you silly cunt. You gotta keep your vain, gutless, supercilious comments to yourself, EnglishGoethe made a fantastic video, with many rational arguments your just a hater............
GiganticSausage 2 months ago
@GiganticSausage Oh now Gary, I know it's you. Stop being such a silly sausage.
X
conferencereport 2 months ago
Finding meaning and actualizing it like you have just pointed out is subjective and is still irrelevant to the argument. Its about what the truth,. not how we choose to view it. The material world in it's essence is complete failure in any logical sense. Recognizing something and feeling bad for it is not enough Steve. By perpetuating life over and over is more sorrowful because people are still continuing the suffering...
itzmarko1 2 months ago
@itzmarko1
The material world is a failure compared to what? You cannot say that something is a failure when you have nothing to compare it to, because failure is relative.
xknowledgeisfreex 2 months ago
@trick0171 "true." Newton's laws "work," too, under certain conditions. Science makes useful approximations, but reality is so complicated and ambiguous that it's extremely difficult to solve pressing problems, e.g. developing a cure for cancers. Unfortunately, there is no golden answer book that we can consult to learn the truth. We're on a journey of discovery. Some find this absurd (especially due to suffering, which is often horrific), and others, e.g. Steve Jobs, go on despite it.
EnglishGoethe 2 months ago