Watching The Dominion

[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.

[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.

[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 November 23, 2024 by zurew

[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 November 23, 2024 by zurew

[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 November 23, 2024 by zurew

[PurpleTree]

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

 

[zurew]

@Marcel Again the way to do this in a reasonable way is by starting with laying out a clear definition for what you mean by justification and knowing and from that it will follow the answer to the "how do you know" question and then to the "how do you actually know" question. But until then because of the ambiguity in the question, you cant expect a quality answer.

The "how do you know" question can be unreasonable to ask, depending on what you mean by "know" because it can lead to a category error.

17 minutes ago, Marcel said:

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?

Again there is nothing wrong with questioning if its done in a good faith way. As long as you are honest about the entailments of being skeptical of certain things, you are good.

"How can we agree on things" Is one of the toughest questions philosophy deals with - but in general the following is enough to solve most problems:

 We need to clarify what our goal is and then that goal will outline a common ground  and a context we can work in. For example, if our goal is to check how to make the most money - once we share the semantics of what we mean by making money - we can develop a set of methods and then empirically check which method will lead to better results with respect to our shared goal.

[El Zapato]

I consider nature's first and foremost mistake was the need for predation. In fact, the scientific process describes microbial lifecycle as literally...predation.

[Basman]

2 hours ago, El Zapato said:

I consider nature's first and foremost mistake was the need for predation. In fact, the scientific process describes microbial lifecycle as literally...predation.

Its not a mistake. Its how you survive and maintain form. Its not possible to maintain form without taking energy from somewhere else in this finite world we live in.

Predation is essentially just the transference of energy from one form to another. Even at the base of the food chain, the sun's energy is being drained by photosynthesizing organisms.

[Basman]

3 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

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

 

That would be nice but it would likely be more expensive than normal meat and stay that way as a niche alternative, just like soy meat.

Problem with lab meat is that you are doing everything manually that a cow does effortlessly just from eating feed. It will always be more expensive and complicated to produce than a regular ass cow.

[Scholar]

11 hours ago, Marcel said:

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

I'm not going to repeat what I just said, you literally didn't respond to it and pretended like I never corrected you about your bad faith interpretation of what you think I claimed.

[dddddddddd33]

@Basman Maybe for now. Everything I have seen shows prices of lab meat becoming comparable in the next decade. Ignore all the subsidies given to the meat industry and the actual production costs are probably pretty close right now. With the climate issue getting worse and worse something has to be done soon. I wouldn’t see it as unreasonable to imagine that some of those subsidies could eventually be transferred to lab meat production. Also, with a cow you are limited to what ever minimum costs are necessary to feed that cow and care for it, which we are probably already at. I think in a lab there is much more room for minimizing costs and optimizing the process.

[Basman]

11 hours ago, dddddddddd33 said:

@Basman Maybe for now. Everything I have seen shows prices of lab meat becoming comparable in the next decade. Ignore all the subsidies given to the meat industry and the actual production costs are probably pretty close right now. With the climate issue getting worse and worse something has to be done soon. I wouldn’t see it as unreasonable to imagine that some of those subsidies could eventually be transferred to lab meat production. Also, with a cow you are limited to what ever minimum costs are necessary to feed that cow and care for it, which we are probably already at. I think in a lab there is much more room for minimizing costs and optimizing the process.

I doubt it will ever reach the scalability of normal meat. Growing animals is relatively easy and doesn't have the problem of having to maintain sterility when you are growing a cell culture or an expensive lab with masters degree holders.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Basman

[El Zapato]

On 11/23/2024 at 7:39 AM, Basman said:

Its not a mistake. Its how you survive and maintain form. Its not possible to maintain form without taking energy from somewhere else in this finite world we live in.

Predation is essentially just the transference of energy from one form to another. Even at the base of the food chain, the sun's energy is being drained by photosynthesizing organisms.

Plants are the most benign creatures on Earth—one molecule of difference between chlorophyll and blood.

[Basman]

2 hours ago, El Zapato said:

Plants are the most benign creatures on Earth—one molecule of difference between chlorophyll and blood.

Take the phenomena of forest succession for instance. Essentially a hierarchy of different plants and trees gradually dominating each other and blocking the canopy of sunlight for the competition. If you ever been in a pine forest you know how insanely dark it gets. Very few plants besides the dominant pine thrive there. Pine forests are the climax of a forest for that reason in the Northern hemisphere.

Even plants are locked in a ruthless game of survival. You just don't see it as a human. Otherwise, why would a cactus have needles?

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by Basman

[El Zapato]

true, the basis of life on Earth does not change, but sunlight is much more benign than a 1600 psi bite and blood flow.