/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19718376]

I'm unable to accept that this is the conclusion of all philosophical thought. I'm yet to find a single refutation or flaw.

Is it really over, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.19718384]

>>19718376
>I'm yet to find a single refutation or flaw.
You could try reading a philosophy book

[Anonymous No.19718388]

>>19718376
i havent read it, or any philosophy, but i, being the peak of human intellectual thought have already achieved the philisophical endpoint of humanity, and yes, it really is over.

[Anonymous No.19718405]

>>19718388
ok now that ive skimmed its wikipedia article, its a total fag book. pessimism and antinatalism that still thinks things are good or bad are faggy. germans in the 1800s already figured out pessimistic nihilism, and yeah its all a miserable droll, atleast right now, but pleasure isnt "good" its just what you want.

[Anonymous No.19718410]

>>19718376
The first and fundamental mistake this pussy faggot makes is that suffering is bad. Suffering in fact is not bad, because suffering is the catalyst for the two fundamental processes of the universe: growth and death. His "wah wah life so bad, its so hard why" whining is literally cope for not understanding the paradigm "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". How he made a full career of this shit is beyond me, coward can't even off himself. That'd be a better way to prove his point than his stupid pseud books.

[Anonymous No.19718417]

>>19718376
To exist is so bad that he decided to write a book about it rather than just killing himself. If that's not based, I don't know what it is.

[Anonymous No.19718419]

>>19718376
if the philosophy is going to make you miserable, its the wrong philosophy. you can be persuaded or dissuaded however you want. be miserable or accept a higher power and live the good life.
>trust god
>clean house
>help others
simple as that

[Anonymous No.19718427]

>>19718410
i agree that the suffering is bad perspective is TOTAL BS, but your arguement kindof hinges that suffering is good by some metrics in that it is necessitated by the endless spiral of the universe, but ascribing value to that system in and of itself is a fag cope

[Anonymous No.19718434]

>>19718419
>you can be persuaded or dissuaded however you want. be miserable or accept a higher power and live the good life.
>>trust god
>>clean house
>>help others
how are you somehow being more cucked in your attack against this pessimistic philosophy than the faggy philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.19718435]

>>19718427
>ascribing value to a universal order as objective as physics
if you don't ascribe value to that idk what you can ascribe value to. if i had it my way benatar would face the wall either way lol.

[Anonymous No.19718436]

>>19718376
The argument requires acceptance of a variety of hedonic utilitarianism to even begin. Not only is this not the commonly accepted view amongst contemporary moral philosophers, it was also not the most accepted view historically. Interestingly enough, in our current culture most people seem to take some kind of hedonic utilitarianism to be "obviously" true (unless they explicitly endorse nihilism). The reason for this intuition is indeed our unique cultural condition: We live in a totally amoral consumer culture whose principal economic activity is driven by the constant stimulation of pleasures. This, together with the contrarian idea of "pursuit of happiness" sets up an ideological background for hedonism to grow very strong roots. The result is Benatar: If chasing pleasure and avoiding pain is really all there is to good, life really isn't worth anything.

Of course, hedonic utilitarianism is wrong. But Benatar's philosophy is the logical result of the culture.

[Anonymous No.19718437]

>>19718405
>>19718410
Struck a nerve, huh?

[Anonymous No.19718440]

>>19718376
Once you grasp that the Fermi paradox stems from all species realizing existence is evil and offing themselves, you'll never be the same.

[Anonymous No.19718448]

>>19718440
i like to think that its actually that WE are the precursor race. we are still in the starting stages of the universes lifecycle. maybe we have to be the mysterious ones to leave datacaches around for retarded reptofag aliens to discover once we collapse.

[Anonymous No.19718455]

>>19718440
>>19718448
Take it to /x/

[Anonymous No.19718466]

>>19718435
yeah exactly. pseudo mysticsism assigning value to larger physical and scientific forces is basically the final atheistic cope people take before taking the plunge into complete radicial nihilism. this is mainly because nihilist philosphy is basically anti-memetic even though its a very easily reachable endpoint, utter nihilism in its very essence is toxic to the concept of its proper consideration in philisophical fields.

[Anonymous No.19718475]

>>19718376
>>19718437
>>19718440
>>19718466
Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves? OR, better yet, why don't they murder other people? Why don't they just go on a shooting spree? Why don't they just end dozens of people and their own's misery early?

>inb4 "B-B-BUT THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT! YOU REPEAT THAT CONSTANTLY! IT'S BULLSHIT! DYING IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT BEING BORN!"
>inb4 "B-B-BUT LE HECKIN' LOVED ONERINOS! THEY WILL GRIEVERINO IF I SUICIDE OR COMMIT MURDER!"
Cope

We repeat it because it's true, and it makes you LARPing faggots cope and seethe endlessly because you know we're right, all else is cope on your part. If life is unquestionably bad then ending a life is unquestionably good, whoever grieves after the fact is IRRELEVANT because that dead person would have still died eventually anyways, so they would have had loved ones grieving eventually regardless, you just brought it earlier; And if life is unquestionably bad, then the suffering prevention of stopping someone from living decades further outweighs bringing about grief for that life's loved ones earlier than usual.

The only logical conclusion of antinatalism is commiting a mass murder-suicide, and not a single antinatalist philosopher has a solid refutation of this, only circular logic, they have literally NO answer that doesn't revolve around playing stupid semantics games with "muh asymmetry".

If you radically reject existence but are unwilling to commit suicide, then you're just a whiner LARPing for attention

If you consider life unquestionably bad, and yet you think exterminating life is immoral because "muh grieving loved ones", then you're a hypocrite idiot not thinking ahead far enough, loved ones would have grieved eventually anyways

It's that simple, your philosophy is garbage and nobody who's currently living is actually taking it to its' logical conclusion

The only antinatalist i respect is Mainlander, atleast he wasn't an insufferable LARPer

[Anonymous No.19718483]

>>19718455
not exactly. im the first user mentioned in that btw. its just retreading pessimism in a way that is actually self defeating to the tenents tying together any philosphy entrenched in misery that it sortof punches itself in the face.

[Anonymous No.19718490]

>>19718475
If I am in pain and need therapy and fifteen antidepressants, that means everyone else is like this too
>why?
BECAUSE THEY JUST ARE....MKAY?

[Anonymous No.19718496]

>>19718475
>Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves? OR, better yet, why don't they murder other people?

Why do you assume they don't? Let's just say I was in the military for five years for a reason.

[Anonymous No.19718505]

>>19718475
im not antinatalist, but for the record, this is exactly the point im making personally in the last link mentioned. all of these philosophies that reject systems that maintain dominance culturally, such as... survival... are anti-memetic in the sense that they are social concepts doomed to be in internal conflict with natural thought processes, dooming any acceptance of validity to be met with these engrained tracks of logic. lucky for me, im not as cucked a utilitarian as antinatalists to fucking care, because their philosophies are presuppose moral systems as simple and brutish as the old testament, of suffering = inherent bad.
also off topic here but have 4chan captchas gotten way easier? i just came back to 4chan after a midsize haitus and they seem way easier than i remember.

[Anonymous No.19718521]

Basic flaws:
>suffering bad
>end goal of life is to be happy
>ut*litarian "analysis"

[Anonymous No.19718523]

>>19718475
Most of those post is schizo rambling, but eternalism means that killing doesn't end a person's suffering. They're still trapped in this hell for eternity, repeating the same painful experiences. All you can do is try to make their life as good as possible, so less of their existence is misery. To strew little pieces of heaven in the hell that is their eternal torment.

[Anonymous No.19718529]

>>19718376
there is no refutation but you will never solve the problem so its not worth caring about.

[Anonymous No.19718556]

>>19718376
Okay give me a quick rundown of the argument

[Anonymous No.19718560]

>>19718556
1. I'm unhappy
2. Therefore every other living thing must be unhappy
3. It is bad for living things to exist

[Anonymous No.19718567]

>>19718523
>All you can do is try to make their life as good as possible
wowie zowie, so the end of philosophy is liberal democracy, amazon, and all other philosophies being condensed into feel good schlock on youtube. Utilitarians truly are despicable. Was surprised by Benatar not being an a*glo last name but found that the author is a South African so he probably caught the a*glo virus there. many such cases

[Anonymous No.19718580]

>>19718560
The author has made it clear in interviews that he is indeed happy and healthy

Cope more

[Anonymous No.19718610]

>>19718475
putting the argument that kills your whole post in greentext doesn't make it wrong, sped. You need to stop getting debate advice from twitter

[Anonymous No.19718635]

>>19718580
Not him

But that doesn't make him any less of a faggot LARPer

Consider >>19718475

>inb4 "muh asymmetry"
Literally just nonsensical cope cleverly disguised as a solid argument through wordplay. Benatar posits that there is an asymmetry in the sense that the absence of pleasure is not bad, just neutral, but the absence of pain is good (instead of not good, just neutral). Which is transparently nonsensical because nobody in their right mind thinks being locked in a solitary confinement in an immortal body for all eternity would be "good" just because there's no pain, clearly there is more to "good" than just absence of pain, which is just neutral.

And that is ONLY IF i play Devil's Advocate, and assume/pretend Utilitarian Hedonism is true. EVEN then, it's still bullshit

And that's it, that's his only answer to the fact that antinatalism implies murder is heroic and suicide is the only answer. And it falls apart so easily a 10 year old could point out it's stupid

How do people take this hack seriously? What the fuck? How far has philosophy fallen? That's fucking depressing to me that this hack is seen as a serious philosopher

>>19718610
>putting the argument that kills your whole post in greentext doesn't make it wrong, sped.
>kills your whole post
Cope

Read above

[Anonymous No.19718651]

>>19718635
Alright, fair enough

Shame that I had to be born to suffer my thread not being based

[Anonymous No.19718658]

>>19718419
based alcoholic

[Anonymous No.19718684]

>>19718376
If life sucks go kill yourself. Less retarded people will continue on lol

[Anonymous No.19718695]

>>19718684
>>19718466
>>19718505
oh god im jerking off to this tonight. proving my points on the anti-memetic tendency of pessimism so beautifully. thank you, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.19718723]

>>19718695
Pessimism is objectively unhealthy in a psychobiological sense.

[Anonymous No.19718772]

>>19718723
yes. it is. hence its fundamental nature stands in parallel with human instinctual intuitive thinking processes. hence me stating it is anti memetic. but spergs like the guy repeating the thousandth same argument against it perpetrate the fundamental anti-intellectualism in most humans. mow if youll excuse me, im about to cum my brains out from this happening.

[Anonymous No.19718785]

>>19718723
>>19718772
>Pessimism is objectively unhealthy in a psychobiological sense.
Not him but i'd strongly disagree with that, if only because there are multiple kinds of pessimism, there is no single, clear, objective definition of pessimism.

I'm the anon from >>19718475, and despite shitting on antinatalism, i'd still consider myself a pessimist. From the perspective of the average redditor, i'd be considered a "hardcore pessimist", but from the perspective of an antinatalist i'd be considered an "optimist". Whereas i simply believe that the truth is somewhat pessimistic, in that i think reality generally sucks and is hostile to justice and happiness, but that doesn't mean you should become defeatist or apathetic about it, you should FIGHT reality to the best of your ability. This kind of gnostic temperament is a far less self-destructive/unhealthy type of pessimism, atleast i think so

[Anonymous No.19718797]

>>19718772
“Intellectualism” that can be defeated by “kill yourself then” isn’t very intellectual in actuality.

[Anonymous No.19718804]

>>19718785
completely true. brands of optimistic pessimism like this are gaining traction online, and arent necessarily toxic to healthy living. i like to consider this brand of it "masculine pessimism" if that makes any sense, and its much more condusive to appeal.

[Anonymous No.19718835]

>>19718797
its not exactly refuting a point... abject anti-moral nihilism that doesnt prioritize or deprioritize suicide arent refuted by these points, and it doesnt matter if the espouser of a logical system adheres to some tenets of living through that system, that doesnt effect the validity of the claim. lets say for the sake of arguement hardcore evangelists were correct about EVERYTHING. if i was to make that claim that is true in this hypothetical, but not adhere to an evangelical lifestyle, that wouldnt make me any less correct. you are retarded. please go back to the kids table.

[Anonymous No.19718840]

>>19718376
The Will to Power refutes this. Read it, and all will be clear to you

[Anonymous No.19718853]

>>19718840
I see you're posting this in every thread so I trust you.

[Anonymous No.19718856]

Is it really so easy to kill yourself?

[Anonymous No.19718860]

>>19718856
14 year old girls do it when their boyfriend dumps them.

[Anonymous No.19718861]

>>19718835
>its not exactly refuting a point
There’s nothing that can be refuted, because antinatalism is a moral claim, and as such rooted in arbitrary value judgements that can’t be justified in-of-themselves. People manage to argue about this shit anyway because they’re either ignorant of this, or because pretending otherwise leads to more fun arguments.
“I make a series of arbitrary value judgements that lead me to this conclusion!”
“I make a different series of arbitrary value judgements that lead me to a different conclusion!”
Isn’t a very fun argument. All I know is that I have an attitude which perceive’s life and it’s continuation as overall positive, and therefore my attitude cannot help but prevail over those which have opposite values.

[Anonymous No.19718874]

>>19718785
>Whereas i simply believe that the truth is somewhat pessimistic, in that i think reality generally sucks and is hostile to justice and happiness
Value judgements, not truth-based.

[Anonymous No.19718885]

>>19718376
https://youtu.be/KkkJ4HztuQ0

[Anonymous No.19718894]

>>19718861
oh no, im not an antinatalist and i dont believe in objectibe morale values. the objective moral perspectives of antinatalism are actually condusive to the opposite of pessimism, as an ultimate good is achievable. its just that both antinatalists and i guess... pronatalists, are retarded. both are arbitrary and about as cucked as it gets. from a moral perspective antinatalists should kill themselves, if their value judgements are legitimate. its just that pessimistic nihilism can exist independent of necessitating suicide as upholding the tenents of the belief.

[Anonymous No.19718895]

>>19718785
since this is 4chan and not reddit. youre a huge faggot you know that? also manga/anime really?

antinatalism although almost autisticly black and white in its arguments and thus appears absurd even for "pessimists" isn't really that complicated nor untruthful although you arent really saying that it isnt, youre mostly saying that its silly/absurd whatever.

listen I sympathise and yes the final conclusion of the idea is some kind of mass genocide even benetar mentions that somewhere in his book and defends against it because of his black and white thinking the same thing that lead him to his antinatalist position. but it's really simple don't bring another life into this shithole because you can't control shit and this entity will eventually suffer one way or another and you have no reason and no moral obligation what so ever to create life other than as a pure intellectual thought practice.

[Anonymous No.19718903]

>>19718860
So how much harder must it be for a deliberating man with intact self preservation?

Suicide is 'easy' when it's spontaneous or accumulates to a point. like being fired from work and jumping in front of a train or leaping from an apartment building after a breakup

It wrong to assume people who think that "It would've been better to never have been born" Also want to or should kill themselves. They might even enjoy living with this mindset,

[Anonymous No.19718919]

>>19718410
>whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Demonstrably false. If I beat you into assisted living you will, in fact, be permanently weaker.

[Anonymous No.19718928]

>>19718853
Based, start here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52914/52914-h/52914-h.htm
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm

[Anonymous No.19718933]

>>19718475
>Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves?

The argument that performing the act will yield the intended result is made by life and world you suck.

[Anonymous No.19718950]

>>19718894
Moral realism is of course false, but I don’t see the point of even truly engaging with a meme as anti-memetic as antinatalism and pessimism about life. People who subscribe to those things will be inherently unlikeable due to their negative attitudes, and whatever genes that may have made them shit people will end with them. Beliefs that aren’t so anti-memetic, I’d be more willing to engage with

[Anonymous No.19718955]

>>19718950

Antinatalism is the only perennial idea.

[Anonymous No.19718956]

>>19718950
You can understand the truth of existence and still live a fairly comfortable life

[Anonymous No.19718967]

Watch Benatar is superb: https://www.youtube.com/c/DavidBenatarOnAntinatalism/videos

>nobody in their right mind thinks being locked in a solitary confinement in an immortal body for all eternity would be "good" just because there's no pain

Benatar holds that life is not worth living even if it's eternal bliss. All arguments that go something like "Bentar thinks the point of life is maximum pleasure hedonism blah blah" they don't understand

[Anonymous No.19718976]

>it’s over. There’s absolutely no refutation pic related *meme pessimistic pop-philosopher.* I’ve finished philosophy. Can you guys please recommend something, because I can’t see any flaws here. Please guys.
How many times are we going to go through this

[Anonymous No.19718977]

>>19718967
>Benetar holds that life is not worth living even if it's eternal bliss
Wow what a retard. Billions of people view that as an afterlife paradise.

[Anonymous No.19718980]

>>19718977

And?

[Anonymous No.19718983]

>>19718956
No one “understands the truth of existence”. That’d be some Lovecraftian shit far beyond us.

[Anonymous No.19718986]

and i've yet to see a single refutation of the refutation of anti-natalism:
if you do not have kids, you will encourage mass immigration, which ruins your country

[Anonymous No.19718987]

>>19718448
This, if humanity doesn’t nuke earth into oblivion this century before a human foothold can be made somewhere else in the solar system, a new epoch of cosmic history will begin that will last billions, if not trillions of years. Permanent intelligent presence spreading in the galaxy in one form or another from there on out.

[Anonymous No.19718990]

>>19718980
His value judgements are plainly just incompatible with normal human psychology.

[Anonymous No.19718993]

>>19718986
but anon i am the migrant...

[Anonymous No.19718996]

>>19718376
What’s the polar opposite of this faggotry?

[Anonymous No.19719005]

>>19718996
Me, while impregnating my wife

[Anonymous No.19719006]

>>19718996

[Anonymous No.19719008]

The reason I won't kill myself despite my condition and often suicide ideation is that life is all I think I know and if I were to continue living I might learn something which would change my outlook or that I am needed to be alive like I'm a messiah or something alone these lines a hidden grandiosity of sorts.

[Anonymous No.19719009]

>>19718996
Unironically stoicism. I never understood why people here hated it so much.

[Anonymous No.19719013]

>>19719006 im this anon
forgot to add which is another faggotry

[Anonymous No.19719014]

>>19718950
yeah thats fair. i think its just important to understand that abject moral nihilists and pessimists can be deeply unlinked from the autism of antinatalism. as someone with little hope for my wellbeing in the future and an outlook on morality that eliminates any higher prioritization, im not really a miserable or negative person. but i do think its not a good choice to say "i wont engage with anti-memetic beliefs" as those are the ones most confrontational to our preheld notions, and they allows us to gain new perspectives. i just think you can detach pessimism from a moral system.

[Anonymous No.19719015]

>>19718996
Nietzschean affirmation' eternal recurrence.

"What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness, and say to you, "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence
Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine"

[Anonymous No.19719016]

>>19718986
The only problem here, it seems, is that not enough people have been converted to anti-natalism

[Anonymous No.19719023]

>>19718987
Nuclear war isn't an existential threat to humanity at all. We'd 100% survive and likely only be set back a few centuries.

[Anonymous No.19719028]

>>19719015
I will be reincarnated as a dolphin I always wanted to be a dolphin It will be so much fun! :))))

[Anonymous No.19719035]

>>19719016
It's self improvement bros who hear about anti-natalist and become enraged

[Anonymous No.19719037]

>>19719023
i absolutely agree. the real eventual great filter is ahead of us.

[Anonymous No.19719051]

>>19718376
David Pearce debunked it. When neuroscience and genetic engineering get advanced enough, it will be possible to abolish suffering entirely. Suffering is ultimately caused by chemical reactions in your brain, so it might therefore be possible to re-engineer the human brain to be incapable of experiencing suffering and constantly experience maximum pleasure.

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

[Anonymous No.19719055]

>>19719051
>Suffering is ultimately caused by chemical reactions in your brain, so it might therefore be possible to re-engineer the human brain to be incapable of experiencing suffering and constantly experience maximum pleasure.
I’m now pro-antinatalism if that’s what awaits us.

[Anonymous No.19719073]

>>19719051
>For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill.
If this was evolutionarily optimal then we already would experience nothing but bliss

[Anonymous No.19719080]

>>19719023
It absolutely is. We would be running a heavy risk of becoming a failed species who might never rebuild to such a capacity.

[Anonymous No.19719081]

>>19719051
>constantly experience maximum pleasure.
riveting

Fermi paradox, maybe?

[Anonymous No.19719082]

>>19718475
why kill yourself when you will die anyway

[Anonymous No.19719085]

>>19718990

So is something as basic as washing your anus with soap and water after each defecation.

[Anonymous No.19719088]

>>19719080
>failed species

[Anonymous No.19719089]

>>19719051
>so it might therefore be possible to re-engineer the human brain to be incapable of experiencing suffering and constantly experience maximum pleasure.
eventually we would burn ourselves out and being happy would feel like being normal i.e. not happy

[Anonymous No.19719091]

>>19719080
Nothing would prevent us from doing so.

[Anonymous No.19719092]

>>19719082
To suffer less along the way, which is also the reason why you should commit murder, to make people suffer less before they die

[Anonymous No.19719101]

>>19719085
Who the fuck does that? I only wash my asshole if I’m expecting a rimjob

[Anonymous No.19719104]

>>19718436
Enlightening post.

[Anonymous No.19719110]

>>19719092
But death will bring the same level of emptyness no matter how or when, seems like a meaningless gesture

[Anonymous No.19719114]

>>19719110
I'm not saying you really should do these things. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate with antinatalism's premises to argue against it

[Anonymous No.19719134]

>>19718785
>you should FIGHT reality to the best of your ability.
Terrible advice. Reality is that which is. Fighting it is doomed to failure and causes suffering. Very foolish.

[Anonymous No.19719145]

>>19719055
>I’m now pro-antinatalism if that’s what awaits us.
Why?

[Anonymous No.19719149]

>why can't I falsify unfalsifiable arguments from a priori positions IM GOING INSAAAAAANE

[Anonymous No.19719150]

>>19719073
>implying we can't figure out how to engineer the biosphere in order to change what is evolutionarily optimal

[Anonymous No.19719155]

>>19718983
>No one “understands the truth of existence”
Prove it.
>That’d be some Lovecraftian shit far beyond us.
?

[Anonymous No.19719165]

>>19719073
Relevant:
https://reducing-suffering.org/how-likely-is-wireheading/

> Organisms are motivated to seek positive reward signals and avoid negative ones. These signals are transmitted via electrical impulses and chemical molecules, which in principle can be faked. For instance, people can take drugs that happen to mimic natural pleasure signals, and they can electrically stimulate brain regions that produce pleasurable sensations and/or cravings for more stimulation. This process of faking reward signals is what I call "wireheading" in this piece.

> Wireheading is evolutionarily maladaptive. Reward signals are designed to motivate fitness-enhancing behaviors, so when they can be faked, the organisms focus on generating more wireheading signals instead of acting effectively in the world. Drug addicts more interested in their next chemical hit than in food, sex, or power are less likely to pass on their genes.

> Is wireheading a common situation for animals and artificial minds? Is it only because of selection pressure that we don't see widespread wireheading today? Or is wireheading relatively rare even among newly created agents? I don't have a confident answer to this question, but below I suggest why wireheading may be not very common. This has implications for what sorts of AIs we expect to see in the coming decades.

[Anonymous No.19719166]

>>19719023
Nuclear weapons are a hoax. They aren't real.

[Anonymous No.19719176]

>>19719081
Somewhat relevant:
https://qualiacomputing.com/2017/12/20/the-universal-plot-part-i-consciousness-vs-pure-replicators/

>In this article we provide a novel framework for ethics which focuses on the perennial battle between wellbeing-oriented consciousness-centric values and valueless patterns who happen to be great at making copies of themselves (aka. Consciousness vs. Pure Replicators). This framework extends and generalizes modern accounts of ethics and intuitive wisdom, making intelligible numerous paradigms that previously lived in entirely different worlds (e.g. incongruous aesthetics and cultures). We place this worldview within a novel scale of ethical development with the following levels: (a) The Battle Between Good and Evil, (b) The Balance Between Good and Evil, (c) Gradients of Wisdom, and finally, the view that we advocate: (d) Consciousness vs. Pure Replicators. More so, we analyze each of these worldviews in light of our philosophical background assumptions and posit that (a), (b), and (c) are, at least in spirit, approximations to (d), except that they are less lucid, more confused, and liable to exploitation by pure replicators. Finally, we provide a mathematical formalization of the problem at hand, and discuss the ways in which different theories of consciousness may affect our calculations. We conclude with a few ideas for how to avoid particularly negative scenarios.

[Anonymous No.19719177]

>>19719081
>>19719176
Article in video form:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGmETz-wDMc

[Anonymous No.19719288]

>>19719145
Suffering is good.

[Anonymous No.19719299]

>>19718405
dilate

[Anonymous No.19719305]

>>19719051
suffering is what makes us human and gives us purpose

[Anonymous No.19719326]

>>19718376
4.) isn't that convincing really. that's the easiest path to refute it if you just don't reject the pleasure-suffering dichotomy at the outset.

[Anonymous No.19719327]

>>19719305
>Have anti natalist beliefs which lead to suffering
>NOOOOO YOU'RE SUFFERING WRONGLY YOU HAVE TO SUFFER THE SAME WAY I SUFFER!!
>SUFFERING IS GOOD BUT ONLY IF YOU SUFFER THE SAME WAY I DO!!!

[Anonymous No.19719340]

>suffering is 'good'
suffering can still be 'good' even if being born is 'bad'

[Anonymous No.19719389]

>>19719326
4 seems to me like the most reasonable and easy to accept premise to me. The fact that the matter composing a rock aren't shaped in a way to experience counciousness and pleasure isn't a tragedy in itself.

[Anonymous No.19719458]

>>19718376
Check this out OP

>*ehem*

"I don't care lmao"

[Anonymous No.19719467]

vinegar tasters

[Anonymous No.19719468]

>suffering is bad
wrong

[Anonymous No.19719479]

>>19719468
>suffering is le gud

[Anonymous No.19719483]

>>19719326
Premise 3 wtf?
Both the presence and absence of pain and pleasure require a subject
The absence of pain is thus an absence within at least one subject
That subject can enjoy the good as a result of the absence of pain
Thus:
There is always some subject enjoying good from the absence of pain
Am I missing something bros?

[Anonymous No.19719504]

why does he do it bros?

[Anonymous No.19719510]

>>19719479
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19719514]

>>19718376
Kubrick refuted it in a Playboy interview ages ago.
Fuck off troll

[Anonymous No.19719531]

>>19719479
it is literally impossible to achieve anything great without suffering

[Anonymous No.19719544]

>>19719155
>Prove it.
Science and philosophy are incomplete.
>?
You really think our monkey brains can actually comprehend the universe in its totality?

[Anonymous No.19719548]

>>19719326
I disagree with literally all of those axioms.

[Anonymous No.19719550]

>>19719514
You're seriously going to quote that ignorant picture that Butterfly posts?

Why is some hack director even taken seriously when discussing something as serious as this book?

[Anonymous No.19719557]

>>19719340
How could being born ever be contrived as bad if it leads only to good?

[Anonymous No.19719558]

Benatar assumes that birth is the creation of something that was never there before, which is absurd. Your body comes from pre-existing matter, your mind comes from pre-existing intellect, and you inherit pre-existing karma. Birth is just the aggregation of existing elements into a name-and-form—these elements then separate at death, but they can never be destroyed.
If Benatar had his way, and all animal reproduction ceased, it just means that all the material and psychic substance would form other aggregates elsewhere, and all the "suffering" Benatar bitches about would just be displaced.

[Anonymous No.19719561]

>>19719531
"WOWZEZZERS I GOT A DEATH MASK MADE OF MY SELF I'VE ACHEIVED MONUMENTAL THINGS"

[Anonymous No.19719566]

>>19719561
Napoleon is one of the most influential figures in history. Who are you?

[Anonymous No.19719569]

>>19719566
I'm anon from 4chan

[Anonymous No.19719574]

>>19719006
This is nihilistic

[Anonymous No.19719585]

>>19719531
>life is about achieving things
bugman hun detected

[Anonymous No.19719642]

>>19719585
what is life about to you then? DUDE WEED LMAO?

[Anonymous No.19719658]

>>19719544
>Science and philosophy are incomplete.
According to your philosophy...
>You really think our monkey brains can actually comprehend the universe in its totality?
Why not? How do you know that they can't?

[Anonymous No.19719672]

>>19719483
Yeah you're willfully being confused about terms so you can try to produce some plato tier gotcha and get recognition from /lit/ pseuds because you're a fucking retarded dumb pseud. Of course the absence of suffering doesn't require a subject. That's innane.

[Anonymous No.19719678]

>>19719288
>>19719468
>>19719340
Light yourself on fire then if you believe this.

[Anonymous No.19719684]

>>19718410
>because suffering is the catalyst for the two fundamental processes of the universe: growth and death.
And why are these things good?

[Anonymous No.19719692]

>>19719504
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71UJUPccD9L.jpg
You need to stop fucking posting newfag. This book has been frequently discussed on/lit/ for years.

[Anonymous No.19719703]

>>19719305
And why is it a good thing to be human and have a purpose?

[Anonymous No.19719708]

>>19719678
all suffering from the most minimal to the most terrible is bad

true or not?

[Anonymous No.19719736]

>>19719708
what you're trying to say is that good things can result from suffering. only an obtuse internet retard would think that the suffering itself is what is good.

[Anonymous No.19719763]

>>19719736
can suffering only be just flatout "bad"? can it be very bad or only a little bad?
is a little bad the same as extremely bad?

[Anonymous No.19719776]

>>19719585
There's nothing more bugmanesque than having a life without pursuit of greatness, you retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.19719780]

It is better to be born because absence of suffering is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.19719784]

>>19719708
True. The only way suffering can be good is if it is instrumentally useful for either preventing additional suffering or generating pleasure in such a way that outweighs the suffering.

[Anonymous No.19719788]

>>19719763
>can it be very bad or only a little bad?
Yes
>is a little bad the same as extremely bad?
No

[Anonymous No.19719800]

>>19719780
>absence of suffering is a bad thing
Why?