Is death a harm?

[alpha]

I don’t know why it’s disputable to suggest that a human’s “logic” is human logic. What else do you expect a human to have? I’m not saying that human’s can’t have expansive logic beyond the mundane... but it’s STILL shaped by human definitions, concepts, and limitations (even if we think it's spiritual or somehow beyond being human). And I didn’t say anything about “sitting and waiting” for anything.

obviously, you're trying to relativise logic itself, which really does "make my head explode".

ok, we're "creators" of reality, but we still have no actual choice in what we "create", which is a problem.

Why is it a problem? Is there only value if we are each a completely separate entity from all else, in total control of all that we want to be in control of? Is not the entire universe a system of systems within systems within systems? What is wrong with being part of (and comprised of) many systems that are functioning at greater levels than any of the parts may be individually aware of? And don’t systems have needs (which you have indicated is somehow inferior to non-existence)?

is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.

Well, that’s an extreme statement/position. You and your assessments of what is superior and higher and lower and worthless... are your own human definitions and concepts that you've decided to work with. Just because things may seem extreme to you from where you currently stand (and perhaps even appeal to you because of that), there are many other vantage points from which thoughtful people (such as yourself) see greater balance and value. So, if there are many vantage points from which to view, your current one is somehow serving you for your own reasons, but it is surely not the pinnacle of all vantage points (not even for yourself). It seems logical to consider that from wherever you are currently standing, you are seeing a limited view within a system of many systems -- just as would be the case for any of us. The vast possibilities of expansion and discovery within that seem like a glorious thing to me. Trying to be detached and break out of it would be like trying to prematurely escape a mother's womb. It seems scary and mad that ego can evolve to think it is superior to that which births and sustains it.

you claim that all vantage points (philosophies) are limited, yet that somehow makes my vantage point (philosophy) less valid than others.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That you've taken it to the ridiculous extremes, that you have, seems to be par for your course. Your ability of building straw-men, is only out shined by your stubbornness. So as to the latter, I guess we actually see eye to eye, in a manor of speaking.

extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.

You're fucking high! And then you woke up, realizing that it was only a dream that you could flap your arms and fly. I was speaking of sickness and disease, sorry that it wasn't clearer. But it's better that one asks, as to ASSUME makes an ASS out of U, not ME.

[Lacewing]

I don’t know why it’s disputable to suggest that a human’s “logic” is human logic. What else do you expect a human to have? I’m not saying that human’s can’t have expansive logic beyond the mundane... but it’s STILL shaped by human definitions, concepts, and limitations (even if we think it's spiritual or somehow beyond being human).

obviously, you're trying to relativise logic itself, which really does "make my head explode".

I knew I would make your head explode one way or another. So, can you explain to me in simple terms... not with a bunch of labels that require further agreed-upon definition... how is logic anything more than what a human makes it out to be? Unless perhaps you are equating logic with "truth"... like some ultimate truth... which it's not. Logic is deductive reasoning, yes? Based on the extent of what we understand at any given time? How is that not confined and even distorted by human limitation?

is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

What makes you think we're conscious and intelligent ENOUGH to have a say in such a thing? We don't even realize and honor that we're part of bigger systems. We're like children with sparklers, running around in a dynamite factory.

you claim that all vantage points (philosophies) are limited, yet that somehow makes my vantage point (philosophy) less valid than others.

Not LESS valid... just AS INVALID AND VALID as others.

[alpha]

That you've taken it to the ridiculous extremes, that you have, seems to be par for your course. Your ability of building straw-men, is only out shined by your stubbornness. So as to the latter, I guess we actually see eye to eye, in a manor of speaking.

extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.

You're fucking high! And then you woke up, realizing that it was only a dream that you could flap your arms and fly. I was speaking of sickness and disease, sorry that it wasn't clearer. But it's better that one asks, as to ASSUME makes an ASS out of U, not ME.

that would apply to you, before me, as you're the one who assumed that disease was my concern.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That you've taken it to the ridiculous extremes, that you have, seems to be par for your course. Your ability of building straw-men, is only out shined by your stubbornness. So as to the latter, I guess we actually see eye to eye, in a manor of speaking.

extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.

You're fucking high! And then you woke up, realizing that it was only a dream that you could flap your arms and fly. I was speaking of sickness and disease, sorry that it wasn't clearer. But it's better that one asks, as to ASSUME makes an ASS out of U, not ME.

that would apply to you, before me, as you're the one who assumed that disease was my concern.

Not at all, rather that it's everyones concern. Here, I have some anthrax I want you to swallow, care to? Don't lie now!

[alpha]

obviously, you're trying to relativise logic itself, which really does "make my head explode".

I knew I would make your head explode one way or another. So, can you explain to me in simple terms... not with a bunch of labels that require further agreed-upon definition... how is logic anything more than what a human makes it out to be? Unless perhaps you are equating logic with "truth"... like some ultimate truth... which it's not. Logic is deductive reasoning, yes? Based on the extent of what we understand at any given time? How is that not confined and even distorted by human limitation?

i'll accept for argument's sake, that our logic is confined and distorted, but since it's the best we've got, we shouldn't speculate about it being limited or confined, before we have some proof. doing so naturally renders everything equally valid/invalid, which is an absurd concept to me.

is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

What makes you think we're conscious and intelligent ENOUGH to have a say in such a thing? We don't even realize and honor that we're part of bigger systems. We're like children with sparklers, running around in a dynamite factory.

so if some of us decide after 10000000000000000000000 years that we're (still) not interested, would that make it reasonable, then?

you claim that all vantage points (philosophies) are limited, yet that somehow makes my vantage point (philosophy) less valid than others.

Not LESS valid... just AS INVALID AND VALID as others.

already addressed in this post.

[alpha]

that would apply to you, before me, as you're the one who assumed that disease was my concern.

Not at all, rather that it's everyones concern. Here, I have some anthrax I want you to swallow, care to? Don't lie now!

i don't "swallow" anything.

should i be alerting the authorities?

[SpheresOfBalance]

that would apply to you, before me, as you're the one who assumed that disease was my concern.

Not at all, rather that it's everyones concern. Here, I have some anthrax I want you to swallow, care to? Don't lie now!

i don't "swallow" anything.
OK, but that's what 'she' said?

should i be alerting the authorities?

Only if you want to get busted for making a false police report.

[alpha]

should i be alerting the authorities?

Only if you want to get busted for making a false police report.

i'd do it anonymously, silly.

[Obvious Leo]

is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

...Yep. I'd reckon it's only you. On a scale of 1-10, what sense value should we attach to this statement?

[alpha]

is it only me who thinks that conscious intelligent beings shouldn't be brought into existence without their consent.

...Yep. I'd reckon it's only you.

actually, many share my view, but i guess sarcasm is wasted on you.

On a scale of 1-10, what sense value should we attach to this statement?

yours or mine?

[Lacewing]

i'll accept for argument's sake, that our logic is confined and distorted, but since it's the best we've got, we shouldn't speculate about it being limited or confined, before we have some proof. doing so naturally renders everything equally valid/invalid, which is an absurd concept to me.

I understand your point. Likewise, if we DON'T speculate about limitations of our logic, then we risk being closed to (and ignorant of) better and broader alternatives. We humans seem prone to become fully embedded in our ideas in order to believe and prove that we've "been right all along". And "proof" can be made up or steered as needed. Then we can destroy those who think differently. I'd say we're not a very reliable bunch with our logic or behavior.

so if some of us decide after 10000000000000000000000 years that we're (still) not interested, would that make it reasonable, then?

We often don't seem to let what's reasonable get in the way of what we think/want right now... so, as usual, I'd say that it appears there are no ultimate rules.

[Obvious Leo]

Alpha. Did you have a possible public policy direction in mind whereby all human beings who are yet to be brought into existence might be consulted as to their feelings on this matter? Keep a sharp eye out for the smiling men in white coats.

[alpha]

Alpha. Did you have a possible public policy direction in mind whereby all human beings who are yet to be brought into existence might be consulted as to their feelings on this matter? Keep a sharp eye out for the smiling men in white coats.

if i assumed some control of the universe, sure.

[Obvious Leo]

I take it then that you don't subscribe to the universal doctrine of causality and that effects must be preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion. Of what use is logic in a universe such as that?