I’ve met very few people for whom the concept “simulating consciousness is analogous to simulating arithmetic” is obvious-in-retrospect, even among atheists. A special case of a “generalized anti-zombie” click?
life-is-good/death-is-bad
Widespread failure to understand this most basic principle ever drives me crazy and leaves me feeling physically sick. I’d appreciate efforts to raise the sanity waterline for this reason alone.
I’m not quite sure how to assign meaning to a normative counterfactual. Asserting “life is bad” is tantamount to declaring war on existence. Humans have massive, sprawling goal complexes, most of which seem to be predicated on existence. It seems extremely implausible that such goals could be consistent with a preference for non-existence. Consciously stroking yourself into a nihilistic fervor says more about the flexibility of your conscious perception than it does about the ultimate “goodness” of life (related Nesov comment).
It’s the “most basic principle ever” because:
It’s implicit in virtually all other normative principles.
Most people have no intention nor desire to declare war on everyone else.
But feel free to let me know if you those don’t apply to you, so I can file you away as “pure evil”.
What if other people dying is good for the survivors?
This is a narrower question that requires answering other questions like “which life?” and “how good?”. It can’t contradict the premise of life being good, it can only attempt to make it more precise.
That appears not to be the case. In general, we want to live and want others to live. Where this does not hold, it is generally viewed as the result of something bad, or as a necessary means to prevent something bad.
What if other people dying is good for the survivors?
If that were the case, it would be an example of preventing something bad.
I’ve met very few people for whom the concept “simulating consciousness is analogous to simulating arithmetic” is obvious-in-retrospect, even among atheists. A special case of a “generalized anti-zombie” click?
Widespread failure to understand this most basic principle ever drives me crazy and leaves me feeling physically sick. I’d appreciate efforts to raise the sanity waterline for this reason alone.
What if life isn’t good?
What if other people dying is good for the survivors?
I’m not quite sure how to assign meaning to a normative counterfactual. Asserting “life is bad” is tantamount to declaring war on existence. Humans have massive, sprawling goal complexes, most of which seem to be predicated on existence. It seems extremely implausible that such goals could be consistent with a preference for non-existence. Consciously stroking yourself into a nihilistic fervor says more about the flexibility of your conscious perception than it does about the ultimate “goodness” of life (related Nesov comment).
It’s the “most basic principle ever” because:
It’s implicit in virtually all other normative principles.
Most people have no intention nor desire to declare war on everyone else.
But feel free to let me know if you those don’t apply to you, so I can file you away as “pure evil”.
This is a narrower question that requires answering other questions like “which life?” and “how good?”. It can’t contradict the premise of life being good, it can only attempt to make it more precise.
That appears not to be the case. In general, we want to live and want others to live. Where this does not hold, it is generally viewed as the result of something bad, or as a necessary means to prevent something bad.
If that were the case, it would be an example of preventing something bad.