Watching The Dominion

[Scholar]

8 hours ago, Marcel said:

Underlying theory well and good. Still. I wouldn’t be so quick to say I actually understand something just „because I have thought about it for a few seconds“ as you suggested to me in the very beginning. 

It's not that I understand the topic, I understand how stupid the unreflected assumptions are that go with people who just mindlessly compare animal consciousness to plant consciousness and assume some sort of naive realistic connection between the two, as if an act in itself causes a certain experience. 

Just because you cut something doesn't mean it will feel pain. The pain in response to being cut, in animals, is a very particular thing.

 

On 21.11.2024 at 11:23 AM, Nemra said:

Because we are emotionally connected. Although, people still kill each other for other reasons.

We can also emotionally connect with everything. But as you can see you'll have problems with surviving unless you figure out a way to survive without ever killing.

So there should be no problem with creating a human slave food class that we don't emotionally connect to.

 

On 21.11.2024 at 11:23 AM, Nemra said:

I don't know if by only eating plants I would lessen the killings.

If it lessens, I don't know if I can fully survive on plants.

However, I'm open-minded to that.

Then you better get to research it, given that this is a life and death question.

 

 

Edited Friday at 12:36 PM by Scholar

[Nemra]

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

So there should be no problem with creating a human slave food class that we don't emotionally connect to.

Luckily, we don't need human slave class to fill our hunger.

If you care about not enslaving anything, then you better figure out a way to not kill anything.

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Then you better get to research it, given that this is a life and death question.

I hope you're only eating plants.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

Luckily, we don't need human slave class to fill our hunger.

If you care about not enslaving anything, then you better figure out a way to not kill anything.

Why luckily? According to you there is no difference between them and animals. So why not have a human slave class to eat? In the end we have to kill to survive right?

 

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

I hope you're only eating plants.

I do.

[Nemra]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

Why luckily? According to you there is no difference between them and animals. So why not have a human slave class to eat? In the end we have to kill to survive right?

There is a difference. Weren't you the one who talked as if there was none?

I wouldn't eat human meat because it's disgusting, I'm not cannibalistic, and I'm dependent and connected to humans more, even if I love to be alone.

Edited Friday at 05:54 PM by Nemra

[Scholar]

38 minutes ago, Nemra said:

There is a difference. Weren't you the one who talked as if there was none?

I wouldn't eat human meat because it's disgusting, I'm not cannibalistic, and I'm dependent and connected to humans more, even if I love to be alone.

But we aren't talking about what you personally would do, but what should be allowed in society. Why would we have laws against killing and eating humans? We could have a special breed that we can kill and eat, like pigs. Why not?

[Nemra]

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But we aren't talking about what you personally would do, but what should be allowed in society.

You could create a law to kill certain humans. It's up to us to make that decision, which is based on our personal feelings.

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Why would we have laws against killing and eating humans? We could have a special breed that we can kill and eat, like pigs. Why not?

Well, people kill each other but not for eating each other.

If you are talking about humans eating each other, then I'll say because

• I don't think most people are cannibalistic.
• we will probably get extinct.
• we depend on and are emotionally invested in each other.
• people want to continue living.

Edited Friday at 06:13 PM by Nemra

[Scholar]

5 hours ago, Nemra said:

Well, people kill each other but not for eating each other.

If you are talking about humans eating each other, then I'll say because

• I don't think most people are cannibalistic.
• we will probably get extinct.
• we depend on and are emotionally invested in each other.
• people want to continue living.

We could drink human milk, that's not cannibalism. All animal agriculture requires rape, so it's not like you are against that if you eat meat or drink milk.

Why would we go extinct? We had slave classes in the past, it worked for thousands of years.

We don't have to be emotionally invested in the food-human class.

Animals want to continue living.

[Nemra]

@Scholar, weren't you talking about enslaving humans in order to eat them?

Drinking milk doesn't require killing. What are we talking about?

Also, we would go extinct if we ate each other. Again, you were the one who introduced me to the enslavement of humans so that we could eat them.

If we don't become emotionally invested with certain kinds of humans at all, it might be possible that we could easily treat them as food.

Do we want that? I don't think so.

25 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Animals want to continue living.

Plants also, but not in the way animals want. Are you going to say that they just grow for us?

Humans grow plants so that you could eat. Do plants deserve that?

Edited Saturday at 12:11 AM by Nemra

[Scholar]

48 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Scholar, weren't you talking about enslaving humans in order to eat them?

Drinking milk doesn't require killing. What are we talking about?

Also, we would go extinct if we ate each other. Again, you were the one who introduced me to the enslavement of humans so that we could eat them.

If we don't become emotionally invested with certain kinds of humans at all, it might be possible that we could easily treat them as food.

Do we want that? I don't think so.

There is no dairy that is sold that doesnt come with killing, and rape is always necessary to keep the cows pregnant.

But we could just have milk humans who are raped and then we use their milk.

 

Why would we go extinct if we only eat a special class of humans we breed? Cows aren't going extinct, are they?

 

Why do we not want that?

[Scholar]

50 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Plants also, but not in the way animals want. Are you going to say that they just grow for us?

Humans grow plants so that you could eat. Do plants deserve that?

Right, so why is this an argument? You said we shouldn't use humans like this because they want to live, but you are okay treating animals and plants this way.

[Marcel]

17 hours ago, Scholar said:

It's not that I understand the topic, I understand how stupid the unreflected assumptions are that go with people who just mindlessly compare animal consciousness to plant consciousness and assume some sort of naive realistic connection between the two, as if an act in itself causes a certain experience. 

I never said that that there is a „connection“ between the two and I also never said they are the same. Even in my first response to you I said: „If such a thing as plant consciousness even exists …“ 

I said if. And not „it definitely exists and here are my arguments for it“

All I’m doing is actually questioning stuff, which you somehow twist into me being naive and now also mindless, unreflected and stupid. 

Seems any discussion with you is futile, if you are not going to take any inquiry seriously.

I hear all of your points and appreciate you taking the time to type them out. I just dig deeper and don’t just settle, because as you said to me in your very  first response:

 „It is obvious, when you think about it  for a few seconds“

Could you scream ignorance and intellectual laziness any louder?

Again. How can you definitively know?

What makes you so dead certain that your baseline theory is absolutely correct and has no flaws whatsoever?

You are completely unwilling to actually question it, which means you are acting on assumption and faith.

Not actual understanding. 

By the way. Assumption implies I made a point and postulated something, which I didn’t. I simply asked questions, which somehow triggered you, given that you haven’t mentioned a single assumption I presumably made and resorted to describing the mere act of questioning as unreflected and stupid.

You don’t even know which position I actually have, regarding the topics of plants feeling pain and them being conscious or not. 

Since you are evidently unserious, unkind and also uninterested in an actual inquiry. I will end this discussion with you here.

Im always glad to converse with people who are so free of any bias and openminded like you.

Best Regards. 
Marcel

Edited Saturday at 05:42 AM by Marcel

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Marcel said:

Again. How can you definitively know?

How can one reasonably respond to absolute skepticism?

For the sake of trolling - I can just deny that consciousness exist in the firstplace and conclude that nothing is conscious and then go around pressing people to provide and arugment why consciousness does exist and then question all of the premises that they use to establish their argument.

[Marcel]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

How can one reasonably respond to absolute skepticism?

For the sake of trolling - I can just deny that consciousness exist in the firstplace and conclude that nothing is conscious and then go around pressing people to provide and arugment why consciousness does exist and then question all of the premises that they use to establish their argument.

Denial is not inquiry lmao 

You are describing a deluded perspective. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

Edited Saturday at 09:15 AM by Marcel

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Marcel said:

Denial is not inquiry lmao 

Oh yes it is, Im skeptical of x - go ahead establish and lay out the reasons why you think x is real or why x exist.

That is an inquiry.

We can play these recontextualization games forever.

Its very easy to roleplay the skeptic.

Edited Saturday at 09:17 AM by zurew

[Marcel]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Oh yes it is, Im skeptical of x - go ahead establish and lay out the reasons why you think x is real or why x exist.

That is an inquiry.

We can play these recontextualization games forever.

No lol 

Denial does absolutely not equal skepticism or rather it’s an extreme version of it, that will lead you to some form of conclusions, but not to the actuality of a topic.

But this raises a very deep question, at what point can you definitively say you understand or arrive at the truth of the matter and which method is suitable for doing so.

 

Edited Saturday at 09:21 AM by Marcel

[zurew]

23 minutes ago, Marcel said:

No lol 

Whats the argument that it is not an inquiry?

See I can even apply it there - I can question your assessment about what even an inquiry is.

23 minutes ago, Marcel said:

But this raises a very deep question, at what point can you definitively say you understand or arrive at the truth of the matter and which method is suitable for doing so.

That depends on what your concept of "understanding" or what you take to be enough. But operating in this vague cloud where it isn't clear what you mean by it makes it so that you can play these skeptic games where you can never be satisfied or argued against, because you can just say "why should I accept that?" and you can always just move the goalpost.

The very idea that everything needs to be justified is something that can be questioned - that everything requires/ought to have a reason and justification or that everything has a reason.

 

 

The reasonable way people do this (who actually wants to question in good faith and not just purposefully want to undermine the other's position for the sake, so that they can maintain their own position without needing to deal with any pushback ) is by being okay with and being honest about some set of starting assumptions. "Okay given these assumptions, I want you to show me how your conclusion follows or why it is likely" or you can attack their starting assumptions if you want, but you have to be honest about the entailments of being skeptical of certian assumptions , because skepticism sometimes undermines its own self and leads you to certain entailments that you might not be okay with.

 

Edited Saturday at 09:45 AM by zurew

[Marcel]

20 minutes ago, zurew said:

Whats the argument that it is not an inquiry?

See I can even apply it there - I can question your assessment about what even an inquiry is.

That depends on what your concept of "understanding" or what you take to be enough. But operating in this vague cloud where it isn't clear what you mean by it makes it so that you can play these skeptic games where you can never be satisfied or argued against, because you can just say "why should I accept that?" and you can always just move the goalpost.

The very idea that everything needs to be justified is something that can be questioned - that everything requires/ought to have a reason and justification or that everything has a reason.

Which is perfectly valid.

As I said earlier in this thread, nothing is obvious and everything needs to be questioned to death.

It is a form of inquiry, just not an accurate one, fair enough. Now you could deny that and that’s fine too and if I wanted to disprove you I would need to find a way to demonstrate that your denial produces inaccurate results, which you could deny as well. 

That would be one way of interaction between us.

Finding out what’s actually the case isn’t quite so simple, is it now?

I didn’t say anything needs to be justified, only the truth of the matter is to be determined, how we go about doing that is a whole different  question.

Edited Saturday at 09:51 AM by Marcel

[zurew]

For example, in a courtroom where one needs to prove a rape case and lets say there is DNA evidence and video evidence (of the act) and the guy who committed the crime actually confess that he did it.

You can still say that you are skeptical of all of that and ask, " but can we definitely know or be 100% sure without a doubt that he did it? It might be the case that the video is fake, and that they faked the DNA test or that the DNA test was wrong and that they forced the guy to confess and lie."

You can do that skepticism, but then one of the entailment is that you want so high level evidence and your standard is so high that it becomes impossible to prove any case - not because its unreasonable to think that the avalaible evidence proves the case  or because the guy who has a lower standard than you is a complete loser because he didn't question all assumptions, but because you have a much much higher standard for evidence.

 

Questioning is not wrong, but be good faith and be honest about what entailments comes from questioning certain things or from having higher standards.

Edited Saturday at 10:23 AM by zurew

[Marcel]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

You can do that skepticism, but then one of the entailment is that you want so high level evidence and your standard is so high that it becomes impossible to prove any case - not because its unreasonable to think that the avalaible evidence proves the case  or because the guy who has a lower standard than you is a complete loser because he didn't question all assumptions, but because you have a much much higher standard for evidence.

That is indeed a valid concern. 

Where is the line of skepticism to be drawn?

Hear me out.

Since we are speaking in this imaginary scenario, interestingly enough, its incredibly unlikely, but not completely impossible.

But does that mean that my first line of thought is that it must be fake? No.

But funny enough, why is that? Why is my standard set in this particular way?

Do you see how muddy and murky this topic gets. Clear lines are difficult to be found, but out of sheer practicality they need to be drawn somewhere and I imagine if all of the evidence you mentioned ( DNA, Video Evidence and even a confession ) were available to a court they would find the person guilty.

And this comes back to the question:

”How do you actually know”? 

What if a court actually decided to check literally every single variable and option, including everything being fake and checking it.

Would that create a better legal system?

”How would you actually know”?

Im not saying this to troll or to be annoying or act superior or just be endlessly skeptic for the sake of being skeptic and edgy or to find a way out of any given argument.

This question simply isn’t easily answered.

I do suppose, assumptions often have to be made for sheer efficiency sake. Because how can you check every possible option and on top of that, how can we all agree on which methodology to use?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PurpleTree]

Once lab meat is safe according to studies. I might move to that.