(Oct 15, 2016 09:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 15, 2016 08:56 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I would say that never existing is exponentially worse, since that is a total denial of potential.
That's hilarious. 
How would you know of any possible potential? You never existed. The potential never existed.
Way to avoid my question:
"Would you also say that something like locked-in syndrome would be sufficient reason for you to have NEVER existed?"
I meant that generally. For
anything to never exist would necessarily mean no potential could be realized. The comparison between a potential and nothing always favors potential...it's why our universe exists at all. It is one of the most fundamental laws of nature...that nature abhors a vacuum.
(Oct 16, 2016 01:27 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 15, 2016 08:56 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Would you also say that something like locked-in syndrome would be sufficient reason for you to have NEVER existed?
Was I born with it?
No, so there is the potential for the life you've lived up til now. Is that worth the risk of falling prey to something like locked-in syndrome, or does the possible risk outweigh all of the experience you've had til now?
That's a silly question.
Man, oh, man…you’re all over the place. You start with consequentialism and jump right into ontology. Oh, no. You’re not steering this conversation towards your pet peeve again, are you? It’s the morality behind veganism, not abortion. In spite of what you may have heard, atheists do not eat babies.
(Oct 16, 2016 02:35 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]That's a silly question.
Man, oh, man…you’re all over the place. You start with consequentialism and jump right into ontology. Oh, no. You’re not steering this conversation towards your pet peeve again, are you? It’s the morality behind veganism, not abortion. In spite of what you may have heard, atheists do not eat babies.
Can't you just answer a question without getting all dodgy for once? What are you afraid of? Certainly not me, but perhaps having to admit an inconsistency in your own values. Is the life you've lived up til now worth the risk of falling prey to something like locked-in syndrome, or does the possible risk outweigh all of the experience you've had til now?
You haven't managed a yes or no answer so I could move on to any point, consequentialist or otherwise. I keep having to simplify the question in the hope of finding a straight, unqualified answer. I wasn't even discussing ontology. I was asking you a question of relative value. No matter what the ontology of existence is, do YOU think it is better to exist or not exist?
You can make jokes and avoid the questions all you like, but that only strengthens my opinion that you may not have any clue.
(Oct 16, 2016 04:05 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No matter what the ontology of existence is, do YOU think it is better to exist or not exist?
An adjective can only be applied to something that exists. Nonexistence can only be applied to something that no longer exists.
(Oct 15, 2016 08:56 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 15, 2016 08:22 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]I seem to agree with Peter Zapffe on the matter.
So you're a nihilist? Zapffe is an antinatalist, who believes it's better to have never existed than to suffer at all.
![[Image: fig2.1.svg]](http://rvgn.org/media/figures/benatar/fig2.1.svg)
I would say that never existing is exponentially worse, since that is a total denial of potential. But then, I'm not a nihilist. If we seek to deny potential over the potential for harm, we should not favor the existence of any life at all, since all life is subject to some amount of suffering.
I'd like existence to be heaven, but otherwise I find nihilism to be the next best thing.
(Oct 15, 2016 09:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 15, 2016 08:22 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]I seem to agree with Peter Zapffe on the matter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe
Yeah, awhile back I read "HIDING FROM HUMANITY" by Martha C. Nussbaum. It was pretty good. I think you’d like it.
Thanks, I can plan to check her out further, though I'm not reading as much as I did in the past.
(Oct 15, 2016 10:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 15, 2016 08:22 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]I seem to agree with Peter Zapffe on the matter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe
''Zapffe's theory is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design.''
This is interesting, elte, thanks for sharing it! But if humans are born with that ''skill,'' why wouldn't it fit into nature's design? It doesn't seem like he feels it's nurtured or cultural, rather it's a natural trait. Just confused on that point. 
You're welcome, Leigha!
I'm not sure about that particular thing either, yet I can say that I view nature as mechanistic and without thought, and technically speaking, I consider everything as natural.
(Oct 16, 2016 01:32 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Oct 16, 2016 04:05 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No matter what the ontology of existence is, do YOU think it is better to exist or not exist?
An adjective can only be applied to something that exists. Nonexistence can only be applied to something that no longer exists.
So no straight answers. Got it.
(Oct 16, 2016 05:14 PM)elte Wrote: [ -> ]You're welcome, Leigha!
I'm not sure about that particular thing either, yet I can say that I view nature as mechanistic and without thought, and technically speaking, I consider everything as natural.
Nature is ''without thought.'' I'll have to think about that some.
(Oct 16, 2016 09:14 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So no straight answers. Got it.
Gregory Bateson defined information as "a difference which makes a difference." It’s a difference that makes a difference relative to the needs of the animal. There’s an infinite number of potential differences but the most fundamental act is in the selection from certain facts.
"We’re symbolic, abstract, and syntax. We have the ability to have representations, not only of the physical world, but the invisible world of causation. We have this ongoing model of reality in addition to our experience of reality. We’re obsessed with creating the correct model. For the most part, this was very useful in our evolution because it allowed us to see hidden patterns. For example, a lion would come along and see a bunch of zebra footprints, and it would do nothing because it has to smell or see the zebra in order to attack it. Our ancestors could use the footprints as symbolic representations of zebras, and say that the zebras went here or there, and one was injured, which gave us a huge advantage in our hunting. Now we have humans representing, not only the visible world, but the invisible implications, as well, e.g., change of causation, other minds, and so forth. The birth of religion came from seeing patterns behind apparent reality. Some of which might be there, and some of which might not be there."
—Peter Tse
Elte is right. Nature is without thought.
Nonexistence only exists in your imagination.
There was a world before you, and there will be a world after you, but a world without you no longer exists. On the day that you were born, that world passed away. To be or not to be was never the question. To be was never your choice.