I find him very honourable. He has raised awareness about oceanic problems, such as acidification and pollutions (e.g., PCBs), and how they affect biodiversity and even our future selves.
I agree with his actions of defending cetacean life by breaking down ships and harassing stupid Faroe, Japanese fishermen, and Inuit people considering there is copious evidence defending cetacean high self-awareness and intelligence. If we acknowledge their high encephalization quotient, high degrees of brain folding, complexity of their neocortexes, psychological experiments validating strong self-awareness, and the established "theory of mind", then there is strong reason to believe their brains have a high capacity for integration and complexity, meaning they deserve to be called "non-human
While I think his means may be critiqued, one cannot disagree his end goal is not so bad.
>>626562
He's a vegan pussy who makes whaling vessels smell funny. Now go away.
>>626567
Go fuck yourself. I'll stay just so I can piss you off out of spite.
He's a faggot and a retard. If you're going to be an eco-terrorist, do it right. Not that I disagree or agree with him. My ex loves whales and I watched the show because she talked about it. The show was absolutely horrible. It's a noble idea, in its own way, but it's so stupidly done it blew my mind.
Like I said: do it right.
>>626562
If he were anything but an attention whore, he'd out all that effort into sinking the world's whaling fleet at anchor. Since the hunting is somewhat seasonal, coordinated diver-planted bombs could take out most of them in an evening, but he's too much of a bitch for that.
I'm all for violence against whalers, but his middle ground is retarded and serves to help people forget that violence is sometimes the answer.
Fuck the whales, if its sustainable then fish on
>>626618
Cetaceans are one of the few animals with greater apes, elephants, and corvids (this one more controversial) established to possess a "theory of mind" (i.e., "capable of modeling the thinking of others and attribute mental beliefs, desires, and intentions to both oneself and others"):
http://www.quora.com/Which-animals-have-a-theory-of-mind
Basically, they can link each instance of a mental states sequentially and continuously in their thought (i.e., called metarepresentation). They do not experience mental states "at isolated points of disparate events" unlike other animals.
Given the research, it is not crazy to claim they have narratives and suffer far more greatly than other animals.
>>626588
Just curious, what do you mean by do it right? Do you have any examples? Like sink the ships instead of throw stuff at them?
Because nobody on /out/ actually cares about nature. They only go /out/ because
>mah guns and knives.
They'd prefer to kick Canadian geese because they're "annoying" and kill protected species for their fur.
A true outdoors enthusiast who respects the natural environment wouldn't spend their time on 4chan.
(yes. I'm aware of that irony. I'm originally from /p/.)
>>626625
>Given the research, it is not crazy to claim they have narratives and suffer far more greatly than other animals.
I should have said "Given the research, it is not crazy to claim they have narratives and suffer to a level comparable to humans."
the point is, you wouldn't harm an innocent human, and given cetacean sapience, why would you harm them?
>>626666
Given their sapience and capacity of suffering greatly due to narrative structures, it is equivalent to killing a human being.
>>626666
because we aren't whales
same reason we kill just about any other animal we want to
no matter how much we suffer we don't really care and depending on your ethics don't really need to care
>>626666
>you wouldn't harm an innocent human
Hmmmm...
>innocent
>human
Find me one, and we'll test your theory. Good luck with the hunt.
>>626668
Same reasoning should be applied to subspecies of humans that are not us.
>>626683
>hunt
triggered
>>626659
Precisely. If he really gave a shit and wanted to stop them, he'd stop them. He's just a fool.
I look forward to whites dying out so that retards like environmentalists and SJWs will cease to exist
>>626782
>retards like environmentalists and SJWs
But redneck hillbillies will accelerate the destruction of Earth.
>>626703
>triggered
triggered
>>626890
Not sure why you think rednecks are not white, but whites are the only race that gives a shit about the environment.
>>626923
>whites only race to care about environment
Hm...what are redskins? NA was a total moonscape before we civilized folk came over, amirite?
>>626683
Let him that is without sin cast the first stone, fucker
>>626562
Hes a full blown fascist who wants to reduce world population to 1 billion by only allowing people that are "ecologically sensitive" to reproduce. No thanks. And while you could make a case against the Japanese, Inuit and Faroese people have a whaling tradition and are subdued to quotas.
>If we acknowledge their high encephalization quotient
You see, thats a problem. Where do you draw the line between "animal that can be eaten/processed" and "animal that can not be eaten/processed because its above said line"?
That line is drawn entirely subjective, in that case along some neurological/philosophical concept based on a few studies. To live entirely without animal stuff you would need to be innawoods 24/7 almost naked.
>>626958
Pre-contact, natives wrought plenty of destruction to the continent, lots of waste, and generally viewed the environment as theirs to do with as they wished. The main difference between them and the white man, is that they were not technologically capable of doing as much damage. There is ample evidence that they did as much as they could and the idea that they were some sort of environmental stewards is an entirely modern affectation.
You're starting a dicussion being biased, then you drift from the subject. You're now discussing that whales are intelligent, no one is disagreeing with that.
Get back on topic. What people's problem with Paul Watson?
I agree with the morale that whales need protection. However, my problem with Paul Watson is that he's a lying cunt and a racist bigot. Pretty easy to demonize the poor Japanese fishermen into a scape goat. Media manipulation is all he does. The truth is irrelevant as long as the message servers his cause.
While the whole idea of 'fighting' the whalers might seem noble. It's actually retared. He burns more fuel and harms the enviroment that he could ever repair by saving a whale. It's a supply and demand thing, they should campain against the consumption of the meat.
If they save one whale, the whalers will work harder and earn more money for getting another one. That circle will keep going as long as there is a demand. Decrease the demand and it wont be profitable to hunt them anymore.
They are making a big show of doing basically nothing but helping keeping the demand for whale meat high.
Also this should belong on /p/ or /an/, dependand on which you want to discus; the whale or the cunt.
>>626562
I believe if the whales and dolphins that are being hunted and harvested are not endangered then its perfectly fine for fisherman in said regions to hunt the whales and dolphins.
>>626958
Indians love the earth so much they often sleep directly on it to make sure whitey doesnt pollute in the middle of the night.
Pic related:someone dropped off this kid while the tribal chief was sleeping one the honkeys brew
>>627076
>What people's problem with Paul Watson?
Let's start:
>Raises millions from environment nutjobs (actually that's funny)
>Spends millions harassing good productive people
>Spends millions racing around in environmentally fragile areas while spewing hydrocarbons
>Achieves Absolutely nothing except environmental degradation
>>626588
>It's a noble idea
This is the important thing. The fact that a lot of these people are cringey faggots doesn't change that.
>>626989
>That line is drawn entirely subjective
Not really. I think any being with autobiographical self and capacity for narrative can have that line drawn. Obviously we know anthropods are beneath that line, lol. Elephants, greater apes, and cetaceans are also above it. Corvids are a bit more disputable
Is there any way to get whale meat in the U.S.? Ever since South Park made me aware of whale wars I've had a hankering for whale. I thought I had a line on some through a friend in Canada but it didn't happen. I've looked online to order some out of Japan but nothing ever seems legit. I understand it probably doesn't taste great but you have to try everything once.
>>627177
Wtf is wrong with /out/. It's like, 100 percent the opposite of /an/. Can't you, guys, be more in the middle-way?
Have you ever had hankering for human flesh? It's the same as wanting to eat whale meat. They both have a commensurate level of self-awareness and intelligence.
>>627177
Explorer's club dinner maybe
>>627281
Eating smarter things is more desirable just like hunting lions is more fun than hunting house cats
>>627283
I'm fine with house cats. But it's the feral ones that deserve to be hunted into oblivion. They are damaging as all hell to the environment and pests.
>>627283
>easier than hunting house cats
Confirmed for never hunting cats. Those fuckers are a tough and worthy foe for all environmentally sound hunters
>>627284
It makes me mad that they explained the joke and also call it a "meme" when it is in fact an image macro. I should've put two and two together faster and realized that this was made for, well, "normalfag" retards.
>>626625
So?
If fishing them is sustainable there is no reason not to keep fishing
>>627281
You can legally eat human flesh you just can't be a serial killer.
To it legally you need a consent form, some willing donor, a curious surgeon, and a lawyer. Once all the paperwork is filled out, said surgeon targets and removes small slivers of muscle tissue in an area that regularly grows back and is used for tissue sampling/sourcing for culture growth.
And then boom you can legally eat human flesh. Some guys in Denmark did it on television.
>>626989
>Because it's a tradition it's OK
As civilisation moves forward you have to leave behind the traditions and parts of your culture which no longer make sense, whale hunting is cruelty for tge sake of it. There is nothing on a whale which is necessary and cannot be substituted by something else.
>>627289
That's nonsense. My mom used to feed the strays and ferals. When there would get to be too many, I would take my .22 to the upstairs bathroom. The window overlooked the patio where they would congregate. It was easy pickings to thin the herd.
My problem is he's fucking scum.
>>626598
>coordinated diver-planted bombs could take out most of them in an evening
>underwater demolitions
>off the coast of butt fuck freezing Antarctica
you really need to stop reading tom clancy kiddo
>>627997
Yea his is totally silly but realistically he could just send a bunch of small vessels travel over to wherever they are at the time of his choosing, whether at port or during operation he could have those vessels blow up the whaling ships with RPGs, which are both easy to get and really cheap
But that's just fun stuff to think about.
![whale-hunting-2[6].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QpJKceQ.jpg "whale-hunting-2[6].jpg")
>being a sjw
Embrace the hunting since kid
>captcha
>fish
Kek
>>627079
Fucking this. Dolphins are assholes. They rove around the ocean in groups and rape porpoise babies. Seriously.
If you're anti-dolphin fishing, you're pro rape.
>>627512
I'm serious, everything and everyone experiences pain and they die, whales aren't special because you think they are cute, if hunting them is sustainable and won't kill off the species then there is literally no reason not to
>but it hurts them and I like whales
Grow up
>>628180
>if hunting them is sustainable and won't kill off the species then there is literally no reason not to
They possess an equivalent level of self-awareness to humans. It's like me saying, "If hunting humans is sustainable and won't kill off the species then there is literally no reason not to." One reason not to is if you have a negative consequentialist ethics.
>>628292
They're not humans though. If you look at the animal kingdom, generally a species doesn't kill its self on a regular basis. They kill other species. I think it's retarded when they harass people who have bee subsisting on whale for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years and they want to disrupt their way of life just because they feel differently about killing whales. I have mixed feelings about commercial whaling. If it's sustainable I don't have a problem with it, but I think there should be more whales in the ocean overall.
If you were living in a vegan community and a couple of people came in and told the whole community "that you must start eating meat" how would you react?
>>626667
when whales develope crude weapons to defend themselves and come to us in a whale committee and ask us to stop killing them for meat, then we can talk about how intelligent they are and tell the japs to stop.
until that happens, comparing them to humans and giving them rights is absurd and you should be embarrased to call yourself human
>>627997
>pic related
You were saying? Pretty sure a few dry suits and some bombs are cheaper than a small fleet of ships. Pretty sure the Japanese ships anchor in Japan anyway.
Like >>628068 said though, there are even more economical options that are just more likely to get traced back to you.
>>628329
>They're not humans though.
So? All that matters is whether or not a being has a nearly identical cognitive capacity, self-awareness, or whatnot. This means they have narratives, just like us, and suffer on a high level.
>I think it's retarded when they harass people who have bee subsisting on whale for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years and they want to disrupt their way of life just because they feel differently about killing whales.
We now know whales are immensely intelligent like elephants, greater apes, and (maybe) corvids. They need to stop. It's like killing a couple of Jews and saying it needs to remain because it's tradition.
>If you were living in a vegan community and a couple of people came in and told the whole community "that you must start eating meat" how would you react?
False equivalence.
>>628345
>until that happens, comparing them to humans and giving them rights is absurd and you should be embarrased to call yourself human
You're the idiot who probably doesn't even know how to use Pubmed. An animal can be just as intelligent as us but with different constraints and means of communication.
>>628552
Killing humans is done all the time, in war and capital punishment etc and it's easily justified, being somewhat intelligent doesn't protect you from being killed if your death will be profitable
>>628570
>being somewhat intelligent doesn't protect you from being killed if your death will be profitable
That's more of a problem with neoliberalism and the increasing disposability of human life. I like how Julius Evola argues we're living in the Kali Yuga coinciding with the growth of neoliberalism and exploitative global economy.
>>626562
>What're people's problem with Capt. Paul Watson
>While I think his means may be critiqued, one cannot disagree his end goal is not so bad
>While I think his means may be critiqued
this is everyone's problem with him. half-measures.
>>626666
nice quads
>>628552
>False equivalence.
How is this a false equivalence? It's EXACTLY what they're demanding that these people do- change their lifestyle because they "don't think it's fair" or "they don't like killing whales"
It's the same as if I told you to "start eating meat because I don't believe in exploiting bacteria for their B12"
During the grind what do you see? You see people killing whales as quickly as they can by large slices to major arteries, causing the whale to bleed out very quickly. That's a pretty humane death and it's pretty much on the same level as kosher beef. You contention that whales and other animals are equal to humans is the false equivalence.
>but their cognitive capacity
I don't care. I don't have a problem with the killing of animals for food or sport. Pigs are extremely intelligent and I still eat them on a weekly basis.
>>628709
>I don't care.
Clearly. You typed all shit just to say this, again?
>>628715
I don't care about their cognitive capacity. That wasn't clear to you?
>>628737
>I don't care about their cognitive capacity. That wasn't clear to you?
Why wouldn't it be? You keep saying it, using increasingly more words that don't add any substance or value to your argument.
Also lol at not caring about that but pretending to give a shit about the wages and traditions of the complete strangers who work in these industries. So, so fucking edgy.
>>628747
Now you're making less sense with every post. Your argument is based entirely off of your opinion and your ethical viewpoint. I'm finished with your argument, I don't have an ethical problem with killing whales regardless of their cognitive capacity.
>>626562
Oh hell no. No way in hell should this thread ever be bumped. This nut job was on /his/ shilling his faggotry. Here's some things to consider about op:
1. He unironically supports genocide
2. He cites reddit and rational wiki as sources
3. He acts out like a fucking child when cornered
4. He thinks preserving the human race is a naturalistic fallacy
5. He will never, ever explain why the fact that whales are a different fucking species is irrelevant. Hell just default to a few obscure studies that totally show they think just like us to ignore the species difference, not caring that the difference is not only valid, but crucial.
6. He routinely contradicts himself (eg, says he hates suffering, but supports genocide; killing something that thinks like a human is wrong, but killing in self defense is ok, etc).
Tl;dr OP is, once again, a faggot, and teddy Roosevelt, the greatest conservationist who ever graced gods green earth, was a big game hunter and could totally have harpooned a whale bare chested. Fuck you op. Commit suicide for the good of the world.
>>628893
>1. He unironically supports genocide
antinatalism =/= genocide
I support antinatalism for the same reasons as Schopenhauer.
>2. He cites reddit and rational wiki as sources
I can give more peer-reviewed sources documenting the intelligence on cetaceans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence
This is a notable one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33317/
Reiss, D; Marino, L (8 May 2001). "Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Proc Natl Acad Sci) 98 (10): 5937–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.101086398. PMC 33317. PMID 11331769.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9K_RlZ8fLU4
^ This is a good video that cites evidence from a prominent researcher in the field.
This was a good study too, but it had some issues. However, if you read a bunch of other studies, it can reveal a lot:
http://www.theotodman.com/Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15494.htm
>3. He acts out like a fucking child when cornered
You're the neckbeard in love with progressivism and "muh ancestors". Your anthropocentric worldview and ethics is disgusting.
>4. He thinks preserving the human race is a naturalistic fallacy
Sadly, it is.
>5. He will never, ever explain why the fact that whales are a different fucking species is irrelevant. Hell just default to a few obscure studies that totally show they think just like us to ignore the species difference, not caring that the difference is not only valid, but crucial.
All that matters is cognitive prowess. If ethical decisions are based on species only, that leads to speciesm and stupid rhetoric.
>6. He routinely contradicts himself (eg, says he hates suffering, but supports genocide; killing something that thinks like a human is wrong, but killing in self defense is ok, etc).
Antinatalism =/= genocide, omnicide, infanticide, murder, etc.
>>628893
>Commit suicide for the good of the world.
The fact my existence brings you great pain, gives my life great purpose. With each of my accomplishments, I shall take solace in knowing how much of a piece of shit you are compared to me.
What you consider to be a "good of the world" is full of shit and subscribes to the biases of the majority. The majority of people are not good people as your mommy and daddy taught you, faggot. Listen to Charles Bukowski school you, retard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gifEn61dZBc
>>629509
>>629510
I recognize you, rat decapitator.
If you are who I think you are, your secret is safe with me. Proceed.
>>629509
>speciesm
>>tumblr
>>629585
This is why this website has gone to shit. You can't support a viewpoint without either being put into the camp of the "SJWs", or the " pol-tards". No, there's no interest in debate, it's just all boiled down into the act of completely dismissing a person on the basis of them bringing up certain controversial topics. The reduction of all users into a small minority of Tumblr's users or Stormfront trolls is ridiculous. A person can hold multiple viewpoints that contradict themselves. Everything has to be politicized with you people.
>>629509
> antinatalism =/= genocide
False. It is, by definition, genocide. You ARE genocidal.
> I can give more peer-reviewed sources documenting the intelligence on cetaceans
Not only is that irrelevant, but the fact that you ever cited reddit and rational wiki as sources damages your credibility as a functioning human being.
> You're the neckbeard in love with progressivism and "muh ancestors". Your anthropocentric worldview and ethics is disgusting.
Straw manning and referring to wanting the human race not to die out as disgusting is childish and you are lashing out.
> Sadly, it is.
It is not. Naturalistic fallacy does not apply to preserving the human race. Git gud, dumb bitch faggot.
> All that matters is cognitive prowess.
Wrong. Species matters. Ability to communicate with humans matters. Mere cognitive prowess is irrelevant. I guess it's ok to torture frogs and small animals? No? Fuck off with that cognitive prowess bullshit then.
>>629510
> The fact my existence brings you great pain, gives my life great purpose.
Your existence doesn't give me pain, Mr "I want to minimize suffering." You're enough of a dumb bitch faggot to deserve to get btfo, as anons here have repeatedly done.
> With each of my accomplishments, I shall take solace in knowing how much of a piece of shit you are compared to me.
First of all, you have no accomplishments. You're talking about genocide and your fubar ethics on a Burmese rotoscope site. Second, I am certainly not a piece of shit compared to you, considering I advocate neither genocide nor an arbitrary, puerile, fucked up abomination of ethical double standards.
> What you consider to be a "good of the world" is full of shit and subscribes to the biases of the majority.
Wanting humans to be able to live on is neither full of shit nor a mere "bias of the majority."
> The majority of people are not good people as your mommy and daddy taught you, faggot.
True or not, it's irrelevant.
> Listen to Charles Bukowski school you, retard.
Irrelevant, you retard. Learn to stay on topic.
>>629665
> No, there's no interest in debate, it's just all boiled down into the act of completely dismissing a person on the basis of them bringing up certain controversial topics.
You are being dismissed because your base assumptions are flat out retarded. You say you want debate, but when confronted, you retreat and lash out. How about instead of being a little bitch you prove that "speceism" is something worthy of disdain? If you're not a damned kid, you sure fooled us.
>>631177
>accuses others of lashing out
>post the most vitriolic piece of the whole thread
I'm not the anon you're talking to, and I don't even disagree with your point, but holy shit you are one giant tool to lack any amount of self-reflection.
A relevant definition OP should read:
>Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
>>631178
I certainly am not blind to the harshness of my posts nor am I lacking in self awareness, but op is a massive fag and deserves to be called out on his bullshit. He was repeatedly btfo on another board where he spewed this same nonsense. I along with other anons were plenty patient with him in the other thread, but op's reaction was so astoundingly childish and cringey that the sentiment behind my words is entirely justified.
>>631183
>plenty patient with him in the other thread
>repeatedly btfo on another board
Carry on then.
>>629509
>I support antinatalism
So you're just a neo-Malthusian who supports abortion? Because that's really what we're talking about here. (Neo-Malthusian gets your point across better if you don't agree with abortion)
Now to the "stop killing whales" arguments. Do you have any reason that is NOT based on emotion or opinion that opposes whaling?
>e.g; Citing that they are intelligent and therefore wrong to kill is your opinion. If someone disagrees you have no basis to say their opinion is invalid because opinions are on level playing ground regardless of how polar opposite they can be.
>>626958
this is so ignorant, the noble savage is totally made up
Indians wrecked shit hard, they just didnt have the firepower to extinct any large animals or else they 100% would have
same with jungle people and aussie abbos
>>627550
>cultural marxist confirmed
>>629665
>pol=storm tards
so who judges people into small groups here?
>>626562
Did anyone mention the time he pretended he got shot? I'm recalling this from memory so forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't he say something about the Japanese having actual trained snipers that they hired to kill him?
If I was him, and I really wanted to stop the Japanese whaling boats stopped, I'd spend some of that "chase them around and throw stinkbombs at them" money on some motherfuckers that blow boats up. Problem with that is it doesn't get more than a few episodes of TV out of it.
But I'm biased. I hate all flesh and blood animals bigger than me. And I would eat an endangered species right off the map if it was the only thing to hunt.
>>631175
>Naturalistic fallacy does not apply to preserving the human race.
Yes, it does. Why OUGHT I base my values on perserving the human race? You base it on evolutionary explanations (which presumed a teleology or end-purpose to evolution - which evolutionary biologist don't believe). That's both an appeal to nature or naturalistic fallacy. "HUR DERP NATURE WANTS IT, HAVE KIDS!" Fuck nature. It is nothing but suffering. I don't want to contribute to this mess that leads nowhere.
>You ARE genocidal.
I have talked with a lot of knuckle-heads like you, and I always ask myself, "Why did I waste my time?" It's obvious you have never really read any book on philosophy or the subject material I discuss deeply enough, so you create strawman like saying I'm genocidal.
>the fact that you ever cited reddit and rational wiki as sources damages your credibility as a functioning human being.
I gave you the Pubmed article, you illiterate piece of shit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33317/
Reiss, D; Marino, L (8 May 2001). "Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Proc Natl Acad Sci) 98 (10): 5937–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.101086398. PMC 33317. PMID 11331769.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9K_RlZ8fLU4
^ This is a good video that cites evidence from a prominent researcher in the field.
This was a good study too, but it had some issues. However, if you read a bunch of other studies, it can reveal a lot:
http://www.theotodman.com/Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15494.htm
>Mere cognitive prowess is irrelevant.
You're proof that dolphins can have more cognitive prowess, yes.
>First of all, you have no accomplishments.
You wish.
>I advocate neither genocide nor an arbitrary, puerile, fucked up abomination of ethical double standards.
Never advocated genocide. Antinatalism =/= genocide or omnicide, idiot.
>>632448
>Do you have any reason that is NOT based on emotion or opinion that opposes whaling?
I already gave evidence of their sophisticated self-awareness and intelligence, and then I gave a negative utilitarian argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Utilitarianism
I prefer negative utilitarianism as my normative ethics.
>>632741
> I'm not genocidal!
Read:
>>631183
Also, for the last time, the survival of the human race is not a naturalistic fallacy. You are the only person associating it solely with evolution. Your failure to get this is mindblowing. No sane person supports the genocide of the human race. Your position is, by definition, genocide. I'll post it again:
>Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
>>626663
A true outdoorsman is going to have a code due to a religious, ethical, or philosophical system And not just "respect the natural environment" just cause. It's real easy to respect the environment when you don't actually interact with it...
>>633738
I base my code on the preservation of my culture and heritage. I take very seriously humanity's role as the stewards of the environment, and the environment with all its habitats a part of our legacy. Hunting is a part of our culture and heritage, and the artificial limits we place on it is for the sake of continuing that for future generations. Even if you don't interact with nature regularly, it impacts your life greatly. No environment means no society. Even if your culture and heritage is urban concrete jungles, conservation of wildlife and habitat is conducive to your lifestyle through the role they play in ensuring a survivable planet for you and your children. This is what op fails to understand about the survival of mankind: it is our love of culture, heritage, and society that drives our will to persist as a species as well as acting as stewards of the environment, not some naturalistic motive as petty as biological success.
>>626958
Whole lotta megafauna got wiped out pre-whitey, dude. Stop buying into the Noble Savage myth, it's infantilizing and racist.
>>632542
If I remember right the bullet was supposed to have been stopped by a fake police badge he carried
As long as they are not hunting the endangered ones then there should be no problem.
The bowhead whale is not endangered, its not even threatened, the same for the minke whale. Hell even the few Sperm whales the Japanese take are only slightly vulnerable.
I only associate the people against whaling with the PETA type people. Nothing but a bunch of whiny babies.
>>626958
The native americans I know are horrible with regards to the environment.
I dated a native and we would often go back to the reservation she grew up on and there was trash all over.
But of course it was probably all white peoples fault, probably sneaked onto the res at night and put the garbage there.
>sjw and liberals
Not even once.
>>632742
Like said before. Any argument or reason NOT based on opinion? The premise that they are self aware is and therefore should be exempt as a food/product item is an opinion- your opinion. I'm looking for a reason besides that premise.If you're just arguing that your opinion is superior or somehow holds more value than mine then I'll be on my way.
>>626697
You're not wrong
>>635817
He considers it empirical fact that cognitive prowess trumps the species divide. He will never, ever acknowledge the validity of other viewpoints, nor will he prove why he thinks cognitive prowess is so important. He will only bitch and link some unrelated wiki article about some philosopher or a study on how they're able to totally think like us. He's nuts and won't be swayed by sanity. Even when confronted with the official definition of genocide, he entrenches himself further. This is classic cognitive dissonance. Hell, look here >>632748 he thinks people getting frustrated with his dumb shit and hiding the thread is equal to consensus.
>>635817
I already gave an argument for my normative ethics.
I'm arguing the main we reason we don't harm other human beings we hold empathetic reasons towards their suffering: that is, most humans can metacognitively reflect on a "self" in a "narrative" thereby increasing their suffering. We don't harm them for these reasons (e.g., imagine them reflecting on their familial life while dying), and likewise, animals with such metanarrative capacities should be spared too, since the depth of their minds are not really that different. My argument only applies to animals with an established "theory of mind" because they suffer to a commiserate level as us.
The minimization of suffering is what defines the ethical decisions we make. Moral nihilism is not going to help us with anything.
>>635847
>nor will he prove why he thinks cognitive prowess is so important.
Of course I can't prove it to someone with the cognitive prowess of an ant.
>>635847
>official definition of genocide, he entrenches himself further
There you go again, incapable of understanding my basic points.
Antinatalism =/= condoning genocide. Genocides are involuntary. Antinatalim is voluntary, dumbass.
I feel as if you haven't even had a college education.
>>631183
>(1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Encouraging antinatalism doesn't even fit the criteria for genocide there, you stupid piece of shit. It's simply encouraging people not to procreate for negative utilitarian reasons.
>>637371
cont.
If you acknowledge the exceptional intelligence of these dolphins, then here's a thought experiment for you: think of Connell's famous short story "The Most Dangerous Games". These pilot wales obviously suffer comparably to our level, given their sapience (i.e., the ability to appropriate judgement), so isn't it equally as immoral to inflict suffering on another man for sport? We can obviously deduce which animals possess more metacognitive awareness based off brain structure and psychological experiments, and it's obvious pilot whales and most dolphins, in general, possess a lot. This wouldn't be as problematic with animals like chicken or whatever, but it's obvious some animals should be in "do not eat territory" because of greater metacognitive awareness and/or sapience.
>>637393
We don't murder humans because of the social contract, even people who are in commas are kept alive
It has nothing to do with the amount of pain or anguish it would cause them and that's why hunting semi intelligent animals isn't seen as an issue
>>637371
> Genocides are involuntary. Antinatalim is voluntary, dumbass.
Don't insult my intelligence. You specifically advocated forced sterilization in the previous thread. Also, suffering had nothing to do with why we don't murder, you mong.
As for "we fear consequences leading to greater anguish" killing whales only leads to anguish for retards with fucked up ethics like you. Besides, if you weren't such an inconsistent retard you'd be advocating the culling of whales that hunt other whales. You lost as soon as you held the importance of cognitive prowess as empirical. Hunting whales is perfectly fine, regardless their cognitive prowess.
If you truly believe humans should die out, kill yourself. If you don't, you're a hypocrite as well as a coward.
>>637397
>We don't murder humans because of the social contract, even people who are in commas are kept alive
>It has nothing to do with the amount of pain or anguish it would cause them and that's why hunting semi intelligent animals isn't seen as an issue
Why do you say "we"? Mankind is not in universal agreement with your normative ethics, which is solely based on the continuity of a species.
>You specifically advocated forced sterilization in the previous thread.
I was joking. I made the point how an ethics based solely on procreation is retarded though.
>Also, suffering had nothing to do with why we don't murder, you mong.
You sound like an autist. Suffering is why we don't primarily harm others. It is viewed as a negative by most people due to empathy.
>As for "we fear consequences leading to greater anguish" killing whales only leads to anguish for retards with fucked up ethics like you.
It obviously causes greater anguish for the whale and their family considering their have personal narrative structures, unlike other animals. In this sense, they're not different from us cognitively.
>if you weren't such an inconsistent retard you'd be advocating the culling of whales that hunt other whales.
I ask again: do you have any education whatsoever? You sound like a retarded hillbilly using a thesaurus.
What you're saying is analogous to me saying "hunting other x humans to save y ethnic group is worth it".
>You lost as soon as you held the importance of cognitive prowess as empirical.
I'm not holding it as empirical. I'm arguing why it ought to make more sense to base ethical decisions on this.
>Hunting whales is perfectly fine, regardless their cognitive prowess.
"Hunting your ethnic group is perfectly fine, regardless of their cognitive prowess."
You don't know how to argue for things philosophically.
>kill yourself.
My position *leads* to not procreating, not suicide. Due to attachment & craving, I will live. I will adopt though.
>>638094
>You sound like an autist. Suffering is why we don't primarily harm others. It is viewed as a negative by most people due to empathy.
no its not, i don't get my rights from being sentient, i get them from my humanity. i don't lose my rights just because I am unconscious, sleeping, or because a part of my body goes numb. I could sexually assault an unconscious women in ways that would leave no physical harm, that doesn't make it ok.
>>638098
>i don't get my rights from being sentient, i get them from my humanity.
Sapient*. You're supposedly a level above sentience, hopefully.
Furthermore, I don't know what this "humanity" you refer to is, considering how divided we are biologically and nationally. This humanity is furthermore in dynamic flux, never the same thing in any two particular instances. I don't see how you get "rights" on the basis of a specious "humanity". A song by Moondog argues this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dLPsw3i_P8
>i don't lose my rights just because I am unconscious, sleeping, or because a part of my body goes numb
I am arguing ethics, not law. My ethical decisions towards you would not change regardless of your present state of mind. Obviously, you possess attachments and cravings, so I wouldn't inflict any damage that could increase existential or visceral suffering.
My argument against painless murder, such as shooting someone in the back of the head without their conscious registration, would be to make a distinction between a "type" and "token" variety of negative utilitarianism. It isn't enough to only care about the particular time-slice or "token" of the negative outcomes of an action that inflicts suffering, but rather we have to think of negative action's impact on the overall life, the "type". So, my argument against killing someone painfully is to hypothetically consider it from their vantage point, if they were alive, and how their attachments and cravings would amplify suffering.
Such a negative utilitarian perspective does not apply to crustaceans or lesser organisms because they can't form narratives at all. They have no attachment but rather entrainment. With such animals, they have simple, reflexive behaviors and primitive sensation.
>I could sexually assault an unconscious women in ways that would leave no physical harm, that doesn't make it ok.
My negative utilitarian normative ethics that does not have that issue. You're straw manning here.
>>638094
>I was joking.
>I was pretending to be retarded
Nice try, you won't worm your way out of this, you genocidal maniac.
>Why do you say "we"? Mankind is not in universal agreement with your normative ethics, which is solely based on the continuity of a species.
Actually, for the most part, we are. You're the odd one out. We, as a whole, oppose genocide, not on grounds of evolution or suffering, but based on humanity, civilization, and culture, but you clearly posses none of these as you've demonstrated your ridiculous inability to comprehend social structures and ethics. You can't even identify naturalistic fallacies correctly. You clearly haven't graduated high school.
>Suffering is why we don't primarily harm others. It is viewed as a negative by most people due to empathy.
Wrong. We harm others all the time. When you get a job (something you might not understand), you're taking opportunities away from someone else, forcing them to work harder to survive and provide for themselves. When you shoot a pigeon, who mate for life in case you didn't know, you're putting the mate through a lot of anguish. When you continue to breathe, you cause suffering for all living beings dependent on oxygen because you continue to contribute nothing to the world but your supremely fucked up mangling of ethics. Suffering is a terrible metric on which to base ethics.
>It obviously causes greater anguish for the whale and their family considering their have personal narrative structures, unlike other animals. In this sense, they're not different from us cognitively.
This never has, and never will, matter.
> I ask again: do you have any education whatsoever?
Clearly, it surpasses yours by bounds.
> "hunting other x humans to save y ethnic group is worth it".
That's nothing like what I said. After all, whales aren't human. You have a strange fascination with genocide and you should see a psychiatrist.
>>638094
> I'm not holding it as empirical. I'm arguing why it ought to make more sense to base ethical decisions on this.
When you fail to produce a remotely logical argument to that effect, while still holding it to be true, you've effectively declared it empirical fact.
> "Hunting your ethnic group is perfectly fine, regardless of their cognitive prowess."
>You don't know how to argue for things philosophically.
Actually, you're the one who's failing spectacularly here. Humans =/= whales. Culling human ethnic groups constitutes genocide. Hunting whales does not. All you are able to do is assert that they are equivalent, but that is tantamount to asserting that there's a pyramid shaped rock the size of an office chair in an equatorial orbit around the earth. With out some sort of proof, what you're saying is meaningless. Since you cannot prove that the cognitive ability of whales makes them equal to humans despite their inability to communicate with humans beyond sea world shows, their inability to build civilizations spanning the globe, the rest of humanity can safely disregard your assertions as nonsense.
> My position *leads* to not procreating, not suicide. Due to attachment & craving, I will live. I will adopt though.
I feel sorry for whoever you intend to adopt. For someone so attached to the concept of minimizing suffering, you're very eager to induce it in someone else's kid.
>>638117
> a song is a source
Fucking retarded as usual.
> Such a negative utilitarian perspective does not apply to crustaceans or lesser organisms because they can't form narratives at all.
It's almost like you're drawing a meaningless and arbitrary line in what constitutes equivalence with humans. Still no trace of any kind of thorough, logical explanation of why cognitive ability should be the benchmark for ethical harvest as opposed to, say, the ability to communicate with humans, develop tools, build civilizations, etc. No explanation of why the supposed suffering of whales matters as much as the suffering of humans or why it should matter more than the suffering of pigs, pigeons, trout, kittens, etc. Their supposed cognitive ability is not an answer, by the way. You need to prove why they matter. I'm more concerned about the livelihood of those japanese whalers than the whales crying over their families, which has been recorded with racoons, dogs, pigeons, bears, and many species that don't fit your list of sapient nonhumans. If suffering is such a big deal, why not these creatures? Why does a narrative structure matter? What narratives are whales spinning? Did they ever think to write about their tragic losses? Which whale can I ask to hear about their losses? Perhaps Shamu will hop out of the tank at SeaWorld and give me his treatise on the meaning of life. However, none of this matters until you can form a cohesive, logical argument.
>>638121
> Fuck social contracts, they are all illegitimate and enforced by the state.
First, social contracts gain legitimacy through recognition, so your shitty immature opinion is just that. Second, social contracts aren't the exclusive domain of the state. They're enforced by society. There are things you can't do without getting btfo by society, like wearing a pointy white hood and yelling "kill all niggers" in public. Your lack of understanding about society in general makes me believe your celibacy is not voluntary.
>>638420
>genocidal maniac.
Shut up, stupid redneck. Go back to flipping burgers.
>>638420
> for the most part, we are.
Lol. This is so retarded. You think we are in universal agreement with our normative ethics?
>We, as a whole, oppose genocide, not on grounds of evolution or suffering
My point is, while we may as a whole oppose genocide, we do so on different grounds. There is no way in hell everyone agrees on what those grounds "ought" to be, which is called "normative ethics". That's why philosophers and scientists still debate. I'm sick and tired of you appealing to this "we" as if there is some universal solidarity.
>you've demonstrated your ridiculous inability to comprehend social structures and ethics.
Have you read an ethics textbook?
>You clearly haven't graduated high school.
I actually have a degree from a high-ranking university in a STEM field btw.
>Suffering is a terrible metric on which to base ethics.
My metric is suffering in relation to attachment. It has more to do with existential suffering in relation to narrative structures.
>>638427
>When you fail to produce a remotely logical argument to that effect, while still holding it to be true, you've effectively declared it empirical fact.
You never directly responded to my argument because you assume your normative ethics to be right. I already constructively criticized how you cannot depend on procreation solely as giving a viable ethics. The burden is on you to defend your shit ethics. Is it okay to destroy planets filled with alien civilizations to ensure reproductive fitness of one's own species?
>Actually, you're the one who's failing spectacularly here. Humans =/= whales.
I gave you sources on how intelligent and self-aware these animals are here:
>>629509
>>638542
>Which whale can I ask to hear about their losses?
You do realize we are trying to communicate with them right? Trying to figure out their language, and there is a lot of research in that direction.
>which has been recorded with racoons, dogs, pigeons, bears, and many species that don't fit your list of sapient nonhumans.
It fits my personal list. However, there isn't that much research in all of them. There is a lot of research with rats and pigs though. I personally don't eat any mammals or birds. However, that's harder to defend. I'm mainly talking about animals with established "theory of mind" (I.e., "ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own"). Defending the special protection of animals with "theory of mind" is easier, and even India has come to acknowledge cetaceans as "non-human persons", furthering my point about how mankind is not in universal agreement with normative ethics, as you argued like a piece of shit.
>social contracts gain legitimacy through recognition, so your shitty immature opinion is just that.
Real good argument there, inbred! Wow! I am impressed with your baseless opinion!
>>638427
>Culling human ethnic groups constitutes genocide.
Here is an example of why you're a terrible philosopher. You cling to standard definitions as a way to have the "upper-hand" in debate. Rather than construct a real argument, you like to just make appeals to what is considered standard and use that as leverage.
I am arguing inflicting a "magnitude of suffering" or "existential suffering" ought to be opposed on negative utilitarian grounds. Your counterargument is all ethics ought to be based on ensuring the continuity of our species, and I've likewise asked you to prove this. Why should the continuity of 'our' species be of value to me, especially after I'm gone? You haven't proved your own retarded normative ethics either, friendo.
There were groups of individuals, like the Cathars, that didn't give a fuck about procreating. It is not the universal centre of how we all derive a normative ethical claims from a descriptive ethics.
The matter of fact is it's difficult to prove any kind of normative ethics. One has to get into epistemology and metaphysics too, which can get drawn out. This is why moral nihilism is popular, but I don't like moral nihilism and make arguments against it too. You are asking me to answer Hume's "Is-Ought" Gap on an image board while you fling obscene insults to rabble-rouse me. We can continue talking if you promise to chill the fuck down with the insults, and I'll do the same and apologize for my outburst too. I'll make a more thorough argument to defend my normative ethics.
>>639368
> You think we are in universal agreement with our normative ethics?
Pretty much everyone but your dumb ass. You might as well respond to people saying the sky is blue with "not everyone agrees!"
>Have you read an ethics textbook, inbred?
You're the one in need of a textbook, you dumb nigger.
>I actually have a degree from a high-ranking university in a STEM field btw.
Your program must not be very high-ranking if it produces retards like you. Unless that degree is worth more than a PhD in electrical engineering, you have no grounds to feel superior to me.
>My metric is suffering in relation to attachment.
A metric whose worth you've yet to demonstrate.
>I already constructively criticized how you cannot depend on procreation solely as giving a viable ethics.
That was never the point you dense faggot. The point is that we as a society (count yourself an outcast if you wish, you're clearly an outlier) agree that continuing society, culture, and civilization is a good thing. To this end, we've set up social contracts and established the concept of human/natural rights, rights that don't belong to whales because they aren't human. This is the point you keep missing, you middle school tier nigger.
>Is it okay to destroy planets filled with alien civilizations to ensure reproductive fitness of one's own species?
This implies that it's either us or them, so yes. Reproductive fitness isn't the primary objective, however. If it meant securing a future for my children, culture, and society, I'd endorse the elimination if an alien race from a different planet. Probably won't happen because this is a bullshit scenario concocted in your mind to support (well, try to support) a weak counterargument to a point that was never made.
>Whales > You.
Shit > You.
>I gave you sources on how intelligent and self-aware these animals are here:
No one important gives a shit. You haven't proven why this matters.
>>639371
> Honestly, man, go shoot yourself in the head and become food for the wolves. Obviously they possess more cognitive prowess than you. I value their lives more than you. Do you know how many times you told me to commit suicide and other offensive remarks, such as me being a bad parent for adopted kids? Well, obviously you were saying them because you're pissed off, but I'm saying this in a cool and impersonal matter: kill yourself. I feel nothing for you now, and I'd feel nothing for you dead. Shoot yourself in the head and let the beautiful red flowers cover the snow, as wolves feast on your detestable flesh.
You are infinitely more butthurt than anyone I've ever seen on a chan. Go see a shrink, pet a bunny, take a shower. Try not to cut yourself on that edge.
>>639386
>Your counterargument is all ethics ought to be based on ensuring the continuity of our species, and I've likewise asked you to prove this.
First of all, you brought up your "minimize suffering, whales are totally equal" shit first, so prove that. That is a significant drift from what anyone would consider normal, sane standards, so it is certainly up to you to prove your stance rather than up to me to prove it's absence. Second, mere continuance of species was never my argument. We could continue the species very well living like savage tribal niggers like yourself in Africa, but I find regressing society to that state unethical, as does anyone else that's well adjusted.
>Here is an example of why you're a terrible philosopher. You cling to standard definitions as a way to have the "upper-hand" in debate. Rather than construct a real argument, you like to just make appeals to what is considered standard and use that as leverage.
Sounds more like you got stumped. If I'm a terrible philosopher, I've got bad news for you, given what you've just written here.
>>639392
>Pretty much everyone but your dumb ass
India declared cetaceans as "non-human persons". But yeah, keep pulling statistics out of your ass.
>PhD in electrical engineering
Wow, no wonder you don't give a shit about suffering. I bet you went through hell to get that degree, but that still doesn't mean you understand the dialectic of normative ethics.
>A metric whose worth you've yet to demonstrate.
Why don't you demonstrate your metric of procreative success being the main thing we derive a normative ethics from?
>agree that continuing society, culture, and civilization is a good thing
Well, man, you seem to have missed the main point I made about how much divergence and differences there are in society, culture, and civilization. Compare Ashoka the Great's values for his India empire to Rome under Caligula or something. My point is, some values are better than others. I'm not a relativist.
>rights that don't belong to whales because they aren't human
Did you miss my reference to India, shittard? They have officially declared cetaceans "non-human persons".
>This is the point you keep missing, you middle school tier nigger.
There have been civilizations that don't consider the difference between man and highly intelligent animals as that significant, and therefore, they grant animals nearly identical rights.
>This implies that it's either us or them, so yes.
Wow.
>No one important gives a shit.
Ashoka the Great, Buddhists, modern India, Gandhara, and maybe many other leaders.
>>639401
>No one important gives a shit.
India Declares Dolphins “Non-Human Persons”
http://www.dw.com/en/dolphins-gain-unprecedented-protection-in-india/a-16834519
Also, many ancient Indian kings were vegetarian:
"This progress among the people through Dhamma has been done by two means, by Dhamma regulations and by persuasion. Of these, Dhamma regulation is of little effect, while persuasion has much more effect. The Dhamma regulations I have given are that various animals must be protected. And I have given many other Dhamma regulations also. But it is by persuasion that progress among the people through Dhamma has had a greater effect in respect of harmlessness to living beings and non-killing of living beings."
Ashoka the Great
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ashoka#Quotes_about_Ashoka
I'm pretty sure many Ancient Chinese emperors had similar sentiments too.
Try again, shittard. Acting like all societies, cultures, and civilizations agree on a normative ethics is the most RETARDED thing I have ever seen. I don't give a shit if you have a PhD in Electrical Engineering; this is not something you're well-versed in AT ALL.
>>639401
>POO IN LOO AGREES WITH ME HURR DURR
Good on you. Meanwhile, the vast majority of her citizens are probably unaware of that policy altogether because they're literally living in shit. Meanwhile, japan with its educated citizens continues its whale harvest with no ethical qualms whatsoever.
> Why don't you demonstrate your metric of procreative success being the main thing we derive a normative ethics from?
Why don't you stop trying to argue with Charles Darwin and pay attention? Why don't you try justifying your more radical view first, seeing as you started this thread?
> Ashoka the Great, Buddhists, modern India, Gandhara, and maybe many other leaders.
Like I said, no one important.
>There have been civilizations that don't consider the difference between man and highly intelligent animals as that significant, and therefore, they grant animals nearly identical rights.
I consider my dog a friend. I also think we shouldn't abuse or torture dogs. Doesn't mean I consider dogs equal to humans, dipshit. Animal rights and complete animal equality are different things.
>>639408
> muh poo in loo
You do realize that a lot of Indian upper caste ate beef, right? Also, "treat all life as sacred" is a far more consistent and respectable stance on ethics than drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about what constitutes "intelligent enough." Even so, ethics built on religion and spirituality are certainly in another ballpark altogether than ethics based on cognitive ability. Using India to support your view is grasping at straws.
You're the kind of misinformed fool who buys into hippie nonsense like hiking barefoot. If I'm not well versed at all, then I've got bad news for you, given this gem right here:
>I'm pretty sure many Ancient Chinese emperors had similar sentiments too.
>>639421
>>POO IN LOO AGREES WITH ME HURR DURR
Are you a /pol/tard? What the fuck is up with this tone? I was responding to your bullshit claim that we not for the part in agreement with a normative ethics. No one, in their right way, believes in such bullshit. If anything, human beings as a whole are still divided and in disagreement on what ground to give to a normative ethics or whatever.
>because they're literally living in shit.
India historically hasn't always had such issues. During Ashoka's reign, it was pretty good. Also, for having a PhD in Electrical Engineering, you sound like a backwards redneck.
>Why don't you stop trying to argue with Charles Darwin and pay attention?
Charles Dawin never argued our normative ethics is best based on procreative success. He was not an ethicist.
>Why don't you try justifying your more radical view first, seeing as you started this thread?
Your view is just as radical. You think an ethics should be solely based on the continuity of a society, culture, and civilization. While one can make a convincing case this is important, to say this is the main concern for a normative ethics is retarded. I don't live my life to ensure the continuity of this society, and most people don't either.
>Like I said, no one important.
We can debate endlessly on what people constitute being "important". Obviously, you lack the intellectual rigorousness to get these basic points, and instead go on ridiculous tangents to dismiss basic self-evident points I make.
>I consider my dog a friend. I also think we shouldn't abuse or torture dogs. Doesn't mean I consider dogs equal to human. A
I'm getting tired of your strawman, knuckle-head. I am saying the cognition of some animals can be argued as equal to humans based off psychological and behavioural research. I acknowledge the ambivalence with other animals like dogs or cats, even though I would never hurt them. I am specifically talking about elephants, cetaceans, greater apes, & corvids.
>>639421
>You do realize that a lot of Indian upper caste ate beef, right?
That's not dealing with the point I was discussing.
>ethics built on religion and spirituality are certainly in another ballpark altogether than ethics based on cognitive ability.
A religion is nothing more than a system of metaphysics and/or epistemology, rituals/meditative practice, and ethics. All ethics, however, are built off metaphysics and/or epistemology. One cannot have a normative ethics without a well-developed metaphysics or epistemology which takes a long time to elaborate.
>Also, "treat all life as sacred" is a far more consistent and respectable stance on ethics than drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about what constitutes "intelligent enough."
I don't treat anthropods with respect beyond their ecological utility. They have no sense of self and simply have simple, reflexive behaviors and primitive sensation. They do not have existential suffering without the sense of "I".
>You're the kind of misinformed fool who buys into hippie nonsense like hiking barefoot.
You just told me to treat all "life as sacred" is more respectable, which is true hippie nonsense. I'm literally talking about academic ethics here, while you just straw man me all day.
>>639430
>way
mind
ignore typos
>>639430
>Your view is just as radical. You think an ethics should be solely based on the continuity of a society, culture, and civilization.
This has been at the heart of almost every ethical code since the dawn of civilization. This is the root of legal systems, morals, ethics, religions. Some try to impose order. Others try to promote liberty. All of it is to this very basic end. Not radical at all. Also,
>solely
Nice try, I give you 2/10. Try explaining why it is that suffering and cognition, as opposed to society, culture, and civilization, the basic hallmarks of humanity?
>I am specifically talking about elephants, cetaceans, greater apes, & corvids.
So why does their cognitive ability matter? Why does suffering matter? You're not convincing anyone with this shit. I highly doubt someone with such poorly supported views as yourself has a degree beyond high school, especially when you cling to hippie memes.
>>639438
> I don't treat anthropods with respect beyond their ecological utility. They have no sense of self and simply have simple, reflexive behaviors and primitive sensation. They do not have existential suffering without the sense of "I".
Which is a viewpoint completely busted by your reference to India, which in itself is a misconception and you'd know it if you ever actually visited India. Good job, fag. Also, you still haven't thoroughly explained why "the existence of I" is so important. Oh well, I'm used to not getting that explanation.
>You just told me to treat all "life as sacred" is more respectable, which is true hippie nonsense.
More respectable than yours. It says a lot more about you than about "all life is sacred," which I can agree is complete hippie nonsense.
>I'm literally desperately shilling (poorly) for my hippie nonsense here, while you just get straw manned by me all day.
Fixed it for you. Your immense butthurt still bleeds through. Makes me want to eat whale meat.
>>639488
>This has been the heart of almost every ethical code since civilization.
No. What's been at the heart of every civilization seems pretty different across each... I mean, look at the Cathars of Europe, the ascetics of East Asia, and so much more. There is so much diversity in ethical codes, I'm starting to think you are genuinely autistic.
>Try explaining why it is that suffering and cognition, as opposed to society, culture, and civilization, the basic hallmarks of humanity?
Once you can explain how natalism is the basis of all normative ethics in most societies, cultures, and civilizations, then I'll give my own defence. I don't believe that you have a PhD in electrical engineering.
>So why does their cognitive ability matter? Why does suffering matter? You're not convincing anyone with this shit.
See, I can do the same thing with you: "So why does continuity of species matter? Why does procreative success matter? You're not convincing anyone with this shit." You see, you're such a fucking idiot, that you completely miss the points I make REPEATEDLY. I sincerely doubt you have any education, dumbass piece of shit. As I've said, evolution has no teleology. It having no teleology means that reproduction is not a incentive pushed by evolution, but rather just a blind emergent process:
"Summary: Evolution has no goal, but there are directional trends of a lesser kind. Teleological explanations are more complex than one might think."
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
>"the existence of I" is so important. Oh well, I'm used to not getting that explanation.
I'm waiting for you explanation of why all normative ethics is based on continuity of species.
Also, I think you're just a shill weeaboo and don't even have a degree. For example, look here:
>japan with its educated citizens
>I'm more concerned about the livelihood of those japanese whalers
>insults India's culture
Go suck Japanese dick and shoot yourself in the head.
>>639496
You're the only one bringing up evolution and continuation of species. The only one. Culture, society, and civilization are much grander than that. You are missing the point entirely. And yes, this is at the root of almost all ethics, that's why those ethics still persist. You brought up suffering and cognition. You brought up radical hippie nonsense. So prove it right now. Why should anyone give a shit about that? You won't answer because you can't. It's a completely arbitrary line with no utility or precedence that exists to protect your feels. No matter where you go, ethics in regards to the continuance of society and culture remains largely the same, which is the reason why those societies and cultures still exist. You are the only one dragging this down to the level of biology.
> Also, I think you're just a shill weeaboo and don't even have a degree. For example, look here:
I can bring up Norway and Iceland too. You're not just treading on thin ice. You're sunk.
>>639499
>You're the only one bringing up evolution and continuation of species. T
What the fuck. You began our conversation in the other thread by saying all normative ethics are derived from desiring the continuity of a society, culture, and civilization, and that evolution gives an impetus for this. I deconstructed your claim that evolution gives an impetus for that continuation, and I then brought up the fact there is a huge diversity of ethical codes in societies, cultures, and civilizations, many of which don't consider the crux of ethical decisions revolving around ensuring continuity and longevity of their viewpoints in future generations. If anything, you're the one who's skirting around your stupid normative ethics, constantly falling back on baseless conjectures and generalizations.
>Culture, society, and civilization are much grander than that.
No shit, and very few of them concur on many things. Catholics are pro-natalists, for example, but other people tend to be neutral or antinatalists. There is too much diversity here.
> that's why those ethics still persist.
They persist for a combination of reasons that's not solely reducible to fucking natalism.
>So prove it right now.
I'll prove it after you give a defense of your bullshit without relying on silly interpretations on evolution. If anything, it seems to me you're trying to avoid moral nihilism by clinging to the biases of the norm, such as human rights having some kind of universal applicability or truth, without giving your own defense.
>You won't answer because you can't
I can't, but it will take longer since I made it clear I have to give my epistemology and metaphysics too, which is what everyone needs to do when deriving a normative ethics. Hume's Is-Ought gap is not easy to address on an image board.
>ethics in regards to the continuance of society and culture remains largely the same,
Lol, you wish. Everywhere you go, the ethics in regards to culture remains largely different.
>>639508
>I can't
I can if I have ample time*
>>639508
> You began our conversation in the other thread by saying all normative ethics are derived from desiring the continuity of a society, culture, and civilization, and that evolution gives an impetus for this.
Absolutely wrong. Learn to read.
> I then brought up the fact there is a huge diversity of ethical codes in societies, cultures, and civilizations, many of which don't consider the crux of ethical decisions revolving around ensuring continuity and longevity of their viewpoints in future generations.
No ethical code has survived to this day that does not result in the society adhering to those ethics continuing to this day. That is borderline tautology. You are seriously retarded.
> There is too much diversity here.
In the context I'm referring to, there really isn't.
>I'll prove it after you give a defense of your bullshit without relying on silly interpretations on evolution.
I'm not relying on evolution at all. This is just you being retarded and incapable of understanding basic common sense. If anything, it us you who should prove your own bullshit, considering you started this thread.
>They persist for a combination of reasons that's not solely reducible to fucking natalism.
Of course. Then again, I never insisted that was the sole cause of the continuance of civilization. That was just you building a strawman.
>>639511
>No ethical code has survived to this day that does not result in the society adhering to those ethics continuing to this day.
Those ethical codes constantly change. They have no fixed being. What the fuck. It's not like their genealogy remains relatively the same. They're different in other parts of the world and time periods. Honestly, this appeal to the majority isn't going to work. I'm still waiting for your defense about how all normative ethics revolves around natalism.
>That is borderline tautology. You are seriously retarded.
Using tautology based off a simplistic interpretation of a culture's genealogy is even more retarded.
It's due to your ignorance that you can't see the difference. Not all cultures embrace natalism, as I have said repeatedly
>This is just you being retarded and incapable of understanding basic common sense.
Normative ethics is based on common sense? Are. you. retarded? Do you even know Hume's "Is-Ought Gap"? I don't give a shit what the majority of people believe. A lot of Americans falsely believe we use 10 percent of our brain, so does that mean I should also? Do you realize how retarded you sound?
Why should I give a shit about natalism?
>it us you who should prove your own bullshit, considering you started this thread.
I feel as if any explanation I give you is bound to be misinterpreted, as you have repeatedly shown. You are the densest moron, I have ever spoken to. I know pro-whalers, and they have given better arguments, honestly. You, sir, are just an idiot. You do realize, there are weaknesses to my argument, you haven't even exposed because of how stupid you are. Let's forget about the whales for a second: you are just incapable of grasping any points.
I mean, it is fine if you disagree with me, but when you imply stupid shit like natalism being the centre whereby all normative ethics is derived in ALL civilizations, societies, and cultures, then I realize you are stupider than any whale, ant, human, or etc.
>>639517
>,
take out this comma after 'to my argument'. Ignore typos.
>>639517
> I'm still waiting for your defense about how all normative ethics revolves around natalism.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why suffering and cognitive ability matters, you strawmanning faggot. You are the only one bringing up natalism. Your obsession with natalism is yours alone.
> I feel as if any explanation I give you is bound to be misinterpreted, as you have repeatedly shown.
No, you feel cornered because you have nothing. Your ideas are based on complete bullshit. You're so disconnected from society that you can't separate basic ethics with regards to civilization and society from natalism and biology. It is only cognitive ability and suffering that matter to you. You are an immature brat who never got past the edgy phase in high school, merely compounding hippie nonsense on top of it.
You are the king of retards, and your immense butthurt only further demonstrates how only your ego is weaker than your ideas. You cannot form a consistent, logical, thorough argument. You cannot understand social behavior and how society functions. You cannot understand basic ethics and its role in maintaining civilization. You are a social retard, who can only rehash the bullshit he gathered from reddit and obfuscate and strawman any opposition. That is why you lashed out here: >>639371
You know your views are bullshit. You're just grasping at straws now, bumping a trash thread made to shill for your hippie nonsense and express admiration for a massive faggot who is only outclassed by you. I hereby dub thee King Autist. You've earned it.
>>639551
>I'm still waiting for your explanation of why suffering and cognitive ability matters, you strawmanning faggot.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the continuity of a civilization, society, and culture matters...
>>639551
>You're so disconnected from society that you can't separate basic ethics with regards to civilization and society from natalism and biology. It is only cognitive ability and suffering that matter to you. You are an immature brat who never got past the edgy phase in high school,
What a retarded ad hominem. There are plenty of anti-whalers out there. Are you going to stereotype your whole opposition?
This is why I refuse to continue on. You'll just misinterpret what I say, and then go, "Huurr derp, hippie, suffering doesn't matter, but continuing muh legacy does!" Seriously, man, why should we continue this debate?
>You cannot form a consistent, logical, thorough argument.
I could, but I refuse to do it towards an idiot like you. Until you can explain why continuing the legacy of a culture, society, or society matters, why should I give more justifications for my negative utilitarian viewpoint?
>You know your views are bullshit.
Sadly, I think there are better arguments for moral nihilism, but I try to avoid that avenue. I have my own arguments for negative utilitarianism which I could give, but I'm waiting until you explain why the continuity of society, culture, and civilization matters and gives a viable normative ethics that's deducible by those with common sense, lol.
>I hereby dub thee King Autist. You've earned it.
Dude, you lied about having a PhD in electrical engineering. Anyone can see through that bullshit. If anything, you're most likely a neckbeard.
>>639551
>You are the only one bringing up natalism.
I think it's hilarious how you fail to make basic connections when they don't suit your agenda. You didn't have this issue before, but all of a sudden, you've just become a complete imbecile.
A few posts up you explained ensuring the continuity of society, culture, and civilization gives a viable normative ethics that's deducible by those with common sense, lol. However, my point is, there's no need to value that. There is no impetus or greater metaphysical significance to valuing "muh species living throughout the ages". I really don't give a fuck, kind of like how you don't give a fuck about the suffering of other beings (which is a characteristic of psychopaths btw).
>>628086
Why do they cut out the back of their heads and slice their gut open? Is that like how you kill whales, or do they harvest something out of those areas?
>>628087
Since when do SJWs care about animals? Sure, there's a small amount who do, but most are too busy screeching about shit swastikas on a university's walls and stuffing their faces with chicken nuggies to actually get off their asses and change their actual behaviour, or do something at all aside from slacktivism.
>>639579
> I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the continuity of a civilization, society, and culture matters...
You clearly have the prerogative to explain yourself first.
>Dude, you lied about having a PhD in electrical engineering.
Nope. I could educate you on FPGA design, but that requires you to be receptive to education.
> Seriously, man, why should we continue this debate?
In order for there to be a debate, you have to make intelligent arguments first, which I have yet to see. There is no debate to continue. Just me correcting your retarded bullshit.
>>639580
You are the one with an issue. You conflate continuance of civilization with natalism. It's not about species or natalism, you dense nigger retard.
> I really don't give a fuck, kind of like how you don't give a fuck about the suffering of other beings
You clearly do since you keep relying on that strawman.
>>639587
>It's not about species
Then why do you keep putting emphasis on the relevance of species differences when devising a normative ethics? You said that numerous times, including here: >>628893
Am I debating with different people? You also said here >>639392 that the fact majority thinks continuing our species is a good thing, means our normative ethics should be derived from that. That's called an Argumentum ad populum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"because we as a people agree that continuing society, culture, and civilization is a good thing, we'd ought to do it."
Uhm, that's a terrible argument. It's like saying I should adopt the biases of the majority without thorough analysis.
>>639587
>You clearly do since you keep relying on that strawman.
You're the one who called me a genocidal maniac. If anything you have the issue with strawman.
>>639587
>You clearly have the prerogative to explain yourself first.
Why do I have that prerogative? Besides, I have a feeling you'd misinterpret me or whatever.
if you want, I can give my epistemology and metaphysics which defends my negative utilitarianism. But you have to promise to stop being a dick and actually take time to get to know my argument.
>>639600
>look at me wildly misinterpret your arguments
Jesus christ, you are a social retard. You seriously do not know the difference between "they aren't human, so it's ok to ethically hunt them" and "muh evolution!" Also, virtually everyone agrees humans should live on, but not because they're thinking "I must procreate for the biological success of my species!" No one is having kids for that reason, and no one is arguing that's the case.
> You're the one who called me a genocidal maniac. If anything you have the issue with strawman
You advocated forced sterilization. That is genocidal.
>Why do I have that prerogative? Besides, I have a feeling you'd misinterpret me or whatever.
I don't know how it works on reddit, but here, when you create a topic, you should be prepared to defend the ideas you shill. Saying "no I won't" or "you first" shows that you came in here with no intention or ability whatsoever to effectively support that idea. You created this topic. Don't want to go first and defend your bullshit? Delete the thread. People have been asking you to do this way before I got into this thread, but you only dodge the question. The only reason why you accuse me of wanting to misinterpret your supposed defense that totally exists and isn't a figment of your imagination is because you are projecting your own inadequacies onto me. It is your tactic to misinterpret and create strawmen, not mine.
You're never going to defend your shitty ideas, though. We both know you're cornered and out of options. Your feelings are hurt, and the only thing you can do to keep this shit thread alive is bump it with your autistic bullshit. Do the board a favor and sage, nimwit. Or, you could sperg out again like you did here >>639371
>>639638
>"I must procreate for the biological success of my species!" No one is having kids for that reason, and no one is arguing that's the case.
My argument is the preservation of anything can be deemed retarded because from the modern biases of reductive physicalism, the perspective of it all ends when you die. Only directly accessible mental contents can be known, and when one is gone, so is the whole caboodle from reductive physicalist position. There is no intrinsic reason I should value the preservation of a society, culture, or civilization. This is why I say you need a better defence. Calling me "socially retarded" is not a defence.
>You advocated forced sterilization. That is genocidal.
Listen, you insipid retard. Our conversation is getting annoyingly cyclical and repetitive. I wasn't serious when making that point, but I was in a tongue-in-cheek manner saying, "I don't give a fuck about your desire to preserve muh culture, society, and civilization." It's kind of like how you don't give a fuck about the suffering of other non-human sapient beings.
>Don't want to go first and defend your bullshit? Delete the thread.
Listen, you stupid piece of shit. I will defend myself once you stop making retarded unsubstantiated claims. Defend your own ethics before I defend my own more in-depth because you sound utterly retarded. I doubt you'll get my defence either.
>You're never going to defend your shitty ideas, though.
Yeah, I will more in-depth. I already gave some thought-experiments on the nature of suffering which you didn't respond to.
>Or, you could sperg out again like you did here
Why don't you own up. You don't have a PhD in shit. No one uses that kind of slang and has a PhD. You most likely have a BS at most, so quit lying..
>>639646
>>639653
10/10
>>639657
I was improving on some typos, you snide bastard.
>>639662
I'm not even him, just a bystander, you "inspid retarded".
>>639646
You are sperging out just as expected. 3 posts of virtually the same content. You must be mad as fuck. You are literally the bottom of the barrel here (and this is 4chan). I'll just post the first of 3 virtually identical posts so people can see just how intellectual your first draft is:
>"I must procreate for the biological success of my species!" No one is having kids for that reason, and no one is arguing that's the case.
My argument is having for the preservation of anything can be deemed retarded because from the modern biases of reductive physicalism, the perspective of it all ends when you die. Only directly accessible mental contents can be known, and when one is gone, so is the whole caboodle. There is no reason I should value the preservation of a society, culture, or civilization. This is why I say you need a better defence. Calling me "socially retarded" is not a defence.
>You advocated forced sterilization. That is genocidal.
Listen, you insipid retarded. Our conversation is getting annoyingly cyclical and repetitive. I wasn't serious when making that point, but I was in a tongue-in-cheek manner saying, "I don't give a fuck about your desire to preserve muh culture, society, and civilization." It's kind of like how you don't give a fuck about the suffering of other beings.
>Don't want to go first and defend your bullshit? Delete the thread.
Listen, you stupid piece of shit. I will defend myself once you stop making retarded unsubstantiated claims. Defend your own ethics before I defend my own more in-depth because you sound utterly retarded.
>You're never going to defend your shitty ideas, though.
Yeah, I will more in-depth. I already gave some thought-experiments on the nature of suffering which you didn't respond to.
>Or, you could sperg out again like you did here
Why don't you own up. You don't have a PhD in shit. No one uses that kind of slang and has a PhD. You most likely have a BS at most, so quit lying, fucking kike.
>>639664
How was I supposed to know?
Also, the person I'm arguing with is the insipid retard. He literally thinks a normative ethics is logically and intrinsically entailed by people wanting to preserve their society, culture, and civilization. He thinks we can revolve a normative ethics on such a phenomena, but he fails to realize that's basically an Argumentum ad populum.
There's no reason one OUGHT* to value the continuity of human civilization. I argued this here. >>639656
It's not about me being a social retard. It's about being honest about a normative ethics.
>>639668
I was fixing some typos, fucking moron. I post and then I delete the preceding one. 4chan doesn't give you the ability to edit posts.
For having a PhD in Electrical Engineering, you tend to form stupid assumptions.
>>639662
> Why don't you own up. You don't have a PhD in shit. No one uses that kind of slang and has a PhD. You most likely have a BS at most, so quit lying, fucking kike.
"Fucking kike" is one hell of a typo, Mr intellectual. Not only is it clear that you're a social retard, it's also clear you've never befriended many PhDs. You have no idea how many PhDs browse 4chan. Then again, you're grasping at straws.
>>639675
>"Fucking kike" is one hell of a typo, Mr intellectual.
Did I pull a string? After all, you do seem like a /pol/tard, so it should be something up your ally.
>Not only is it clear that you're a social retard,
I'm not a social retard.
>It's also clear you've never befriended many PhDs.
Fuck getting PhD. 7 years of your life drowning in abstraction for shit pay. MS is so much better.
Anyways, I don't want to talk anymore if all you'll do is fling at ad hominems and give shit retarded counterarguments tantamount to "preserving muh heritage and peoples". I'm pretty sure if I were to give my epistemological and metaphysical argument too, then you'd scoff at it and miss the point.
>>639679
>7 years
5-6 yrs, some people spend 7 though*.
>>639584
Might have something to do with the contents of their guts spoiling the meat around it. They might cut the back of their heads to make sure that they are dead.
>>639679
Once again, we see misinterpretation and an absolute inability to defend oneself, as well as social retardation and emotional instability. What we don't see is any sort of logic or honesty. Then again, what else can we expect from someone who "accidentally" types gems like this:
> Honestly, man, go shoot yourself in the head and become food for the wolves. Obviously they possess more cognitive prowess than you. I value their lives more than you. Do you know how many times you told me to commit suicide and other offensive remarks, such as me being a bad parent for adopted kids? Well, obviously you were saying them because you're pissed off, but I'm saying this in a cool and impersonal matter: kill yourself. I feel nothing for you now, and I'd feel nothing for you dead. Shoot yourself in the head and let the beautiful red flowers cover the snow, as wolves feast on your detestable flesh.
>>639689
Once again, we see nothing but duplicity and evasion by an elitist asshole who doesn't know how to form cohesive counterarguments, and is a hypocrite who told me to commit suicide. He also said I will make any kid I adopt depressed.
Listen, man, you want me to tell you the truth? I am serious by wanting you to die. You told me commit suicide and other horrible things, and I genuinely want you to die too. If you keep trying to rabble-rouse me, then I'll continue saying shit like that in response.
>>639689
>matter
manner*
typo
>>639692
> iously on Operator Chan.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across theUSAand your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>639692
> you hurt my feelings and I can't argue for shit
Tell me what's new, bitch faggot.
>>639709
lol
>>639711
Also, if you didn't get what I'm saying now.. it's simple. You have no good solutions, only good criticisms. We're left with moral nihilism then.
Most ethical debates become like this unless time is taken to debate epistemological and metaphysical claims. If you want, we can shift gears and discuss that.
What're your ontological positions? While this may not seem relevant at first glance, I do tie it in near the end and derive ethical claims. It will take a long time though.
>>639709
> What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little whale? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Whaling Academy of Norway, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Minkes, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in net casting and I’m the top harpooner in the entire Japanese whaling fleet. You are nothing to me but just another meal. I will spear you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, dolphin. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of fishermen across theseven seasand your spawning waters are being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, Shamu. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can fillet you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed whaling, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Bass Pro Shops and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the oceans, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” blowhole spout was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking breath. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will be beached in it. You’re fucking dead, whale.
>>639731
We're talking about a normative ethics, idiot. None of those are solutions.
You disagreed with my negative utilitarianism, and I refuted your biopolitical normative ethics that is based on ensuring the continuity of a society, culture, and civilization. If we were to abandon all normative ethics altogether, due to Hume's "Is-Ought Gap", we're left with moral nihilism.
I don't give a shit about your biases and personal sentiments.
>>639739
>>639736
are you for real
>>639740
>biopolitical
bipolitical influenced*
>>626666
>Explaining quasi-Kantian Ethics to sc/out/s
No use. If theres one stereotype we fit its stubborn; most people here dont want to move past the moral they learned their parents our rural communities. And a lot of outdoorsman, especially here, only enjoy the outdoors because theyre completely cynical and pessimistic bastards who have no hope for humanity or reason.
>>639740
>Is-ought gap
The problem here is that anyone who thinks the only knowledge we can have is empirical is misguided and narrow sighted. The gab exists, but doesnt mean normative claims cant be made; they have to derive their basis from other means.
>>639740
Hey faggot, your ethics is full of shit, and your refutation was based on a deliberate misinterpretation (or maybe you're just that retarded). And you're still dodging the question as usual. I know you've got nothing but emotional outbursts left. This is so cringe worthy I'm considering using it as epic copypasta:
> Honestly, man, go shoot yourself in the head and become food for the wolves. Obviously they possess more cognitive prowess than you. I value their lives more than you. Do you know how many times you told me to commit suicide and other offensive remarks, such as me being a bad parent for adopted kids? Well, obviously you were saying them because you're pissed off, but I'm saying this in a cool and impersonal matter: kill yourself. I feel nothing for you now, and I'd feel nothing for you dead. Shoot yourself in the head and let the beautiful red flowers cover the snow, as wolves feast on your detestable flesh.
>>639744
He's an idiot who can't argue worth crap. I wouldn't put it past him to be that retarded.
>>639771
>This is so cringe worthy I'm considering using it as epic copypasta:
I get the point. Quit posting it, you idiot. This guy understood me btw: >>639767
I'm trying to explain high-level philosophy to you, but you keep derailing shit to insulting me and crap.
>>639771
>He's an idiot who can't argue worth crap. I wouldn't put it past him to be that retarded.
If I was such an idiot, why do I have friends that share similar sentiments?
At this point, you sound like an idiot jumping on endless ad hominems. Why should I continue wasting my time with you?
>>639769
>The gab exists, but doesnt mean normative claims cant be made; they have to derive their basis from other means.
There's no way in hell that normative ethics exists 'a priori'. No way. It can only be 'a posteriori'. Because of that, you can't derive a normative ethics from some transcendental reason, that is some kinda assumed a priori categories of thought.
My approach, which I haven't elaborated, is different.
>>639777
> still no arguments made
> still no defense made
> b-but my friends which totally exist are just as edgy and retarded as I am
You want to be taken seriously? Try defending your views without being a limpwristed faggot afraid of criticism. Of course, that requires you to actually be able to justify it instead of bluffing.
You're the sort of autistic social retard that shouldn't have been let out of reddit.
On a separate note, you should let your friends hear you recite this:
> Honestly, man, go shoot yourself in the head and become food for the wolves. Obviously they possess more cognitive prowess than you. I value their lives more than you. Do you know how many times you told me to commit suicide and other offensive remarks, such as me being a bad parent for adopted kids? Well, obviously you were saying them because you're pissed off, but I'm saying this in a cool and impersonal matter: kill yourself. I feel nothing for you now, and I'd feel nothing for you dead. Shoot yourself in the head and let the beautiful red flowers cover the snow, as wolves feast on your detestable flesh.
My sides are in fucking orbit. Theirs will be as well.
>>639780
>Theres no way normative ethics can be derived a priori?
What a huge claim, care to elaborate? Plus, doesnt the is-ought problem you seem to be so fond exactly point out that normative ethics cant be derived from a posteriori evidense? There is no way to connect the "is" (a posteriori, or more specifically empirical evidence) to the "ought". This man to the left made that illogical move a lot.
>>639783
>You want to be taken seriously? Try defending your views without being a limpwristed faggot afraid of criticism.
Hey, fucking idiot, I was trying to do that here, >>639719, before you went on a tangent. If you want me to defend my normative ethics, then we have to start from epistemology / ontology from the ground up. I asked, what are your ontological positions?
>My sides are in fucking orbit. Theirs will be as well.
Not really. They chuckled a bit but not as much as you. They know I'm a bit serious.
I don't get angry, but I can get a bit psychopathic. You're doing a good job of that. Like I've said, let's change the tone and start talking for real. What are your ontological positions?
This is how philosophy works: epistemology --> metaphysics --> normative ethics. Epistemology and metaphysics have a lot of overlap though.
>>639786
>epistemology --> metaphysics --> normative ethics.
Im glad someone understands this, but if youre interested Id encourage you to look at the works of Pierce, he makes greatly strong argument as to why logical and mathematical assumptions come previous to most of epistemology; though it could be argued hes just looking at very basic epistemology, I think his ideas come previous even to notions of "understanding". The Monad Diad and Triad are good places to start if you want to wikipedia it.
God philosphy faggots drag our shit into everything.
>>639789
I'm typing my views up. It's taking up 2 pages single-spaced...
>>639786
> I've got a defense, seriously!
> you answer first!
> I'm not going to say it yet!
> I have friends!
This is a comedy gold mine.
>>639825
Okay, I'll post it now, but it's 8278 characters... and I was simplifying it too...
Fine, I'll explain now. Bear with me, I'm summing up a lot of stuff.
First off, I like to always give the conclusion before I detail my arguments: I agree with Henri Bergson's views in Matter and Memory that explicit memory exists in another field that reciprocally and recurrently interacts with brain activity. I do not think the qualitative fragmented facades of an explicit memory are reducible to brain activity, even though they depend on it for consolidation and retrieval. Hippocampal-cortical dynamics or hippocampal theta precessions are not identical with the explicit memory of your joyful, painful, etc. moments because I accept the irreducibility of qualia due to the reasons Chalmers provides, such as Mary's Thought Room Experiment. Henri Bergson gives good arguments here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/#4
>>639832
Anyway, my argument is as such. The crux of my argument is Point #1:
1) I agree attention and cognitive faculties emerge from brain processing. I am a STRONG emergentist. I definitely don't like weak emergentism. The issue with explaining explicit memory facades as emerging from brain activity is that, what is the nature of explicit memory when it is not persistently arising? Can the qualitative potentialities of explicit memory in its various forms arising from biology be said to pre-exist their temporal appearances? If not, how else can one explain a causal relation of the unique qualities arising from explicit meory in a way accessible to brain activity? What is the nature of declarative memory in relation to neural activity, what is its encodable field? This is hard to explain. However, one way to falsify it, which or current science is nowhere near, is to get a brain in a vat and have nanobots mimic the mesoscopic neural activity in the brain. Then put the brain in a robot and see if highly REFINED explicit memory is possible. If it is possible, then I am wrong. Point #1 is arguing for storehouse consciousness (alayavijnana). Attention, which emerges from brain activity, is directed to storehouse consciousness and thereby self-consciousness arises, which is my answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
>Defending a clear anti-reductionist position, he considered memory to be of a deeply spiritual nature; the brain serving the need of orienting present action by inserting relevant memories. The brain thus being of a practical nature. Certain lesions tend to perturb this practical function, but without erasing memory as such. The memories are, instead, simply not ‘incarnated’, and cannot serve their purpose.”
>>639832
>>639833
2) there is no 'bottom turtle' or underlying essence to phenomena. I take Sorites Paradox literally and argue nothing possesses a rigid and fixed self-essence. It is not due to vague predicates, for it shows difference is foundational and constitutive, which Deleuze does a good job arguing:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/diff-ont/
Furthermore, everything dependently arises. Everything empirical is contingent, therefore we must think of everything as immanent and in terms of relational dispositions, rather than substance.
I can give more specific arguments to Point #2, but to save time, I'm just breezing through this.
2.5) The question is not what is the intrinsic nature of various phenomena but how they relate. This is an anti-essentialist and process philosophy view.
2.75) All experience exists in working memory where it is either consolidated into short or long term memory or then retrieved. Hippocampal-cortical dynamics work like an autoassociator to do “carrying” of these facades which are always in motion and not reducible to structural changes in brain, which does reflect it though. It's interesting to note autoassociators resemble holographs in the way they behave
C 3) I avoid substance dualism because I view everything as immanent. The best way to describe my view is “Plane Plurality Monism”.
>>639832
>>639833
>>639834
Now, onto normative ethics claims. I argue that explicit memory possesses a degree of independence, while still being contingent, from brain activity which means it is involved in creating the volitional formations of the next life. All explicit memory is in motion regardless of being retrieved or not, and it is always coalescing or blobbing into something else, and once the body disintegrates becoming a part of the matter universe, the volitional formations influence the bridge to next life. There is no “essence” that transmigrates, merely just potentialities or seeds being transferred. Since life always involves pain, misery, loss, and so forth, what is ethical decision is to disentangle and detach oneself from karmic residues in the storehouse consciousness (alayavijnana) so that it may be purified: by being “purified”, presumably in deep samadhi or satori, the storehouse consciousness no longer leaves seeds (bija) to cause the formation of new volitional formations (sankhara), no longer bridging two existences; thus, it being purified ends in perpetual parinirvana, the Tathagata-garbha. My normative ethics is thus one that values selfless compassion above all else, and this requires deep empathy towards the suffering of other beings, including humans.
>>639832
>>639833
>>639834
>>639835
Here is the ethical argument:
1) Explicit memory having a degree of independence from brain activity means it has potential energy or bija. Positive or negative rebirth is based off how much one attaches to sensation, thought, or whatnot. Selfless compassion helps with dissolving the seeds.
2) reality is predominantly suffering, or dukkha, worst thing is to continue it in any shape or form
3) beings that possess capacity of dissolving explicit memory need more protection since they can be liberated and perpetually experience parinirvana. Killing them also increases attachment to bodily lust, desire for taste of flesh, etc.
If you choose a life of attachment, then you'll perpetuate a chain of endless suffering until a future entity realizes nirvana is better. I agree with the metaphysical voluntarism of Von Hartmann here, a disciple of Schopenhauer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Robert_Eduard_von_Hartmann#Philosophy
4) every chain of entities eventually realizes nirvana is better than life
These views are inspired by these figures:
1) Henri Bergson
2) Lankavatara Sutra of Zen
3) Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann
4) David Chalmers
5) Stephen E. Robbins
I have left out the part about how explicit memory is necessary for the experience of time. It is important to realize without the autoassociative activity of it, then there is nothing but simultaneity within the seamless flow or transference of states. The function of explicit memory is simulacra-like. There are also a lot of areas I am agnostic about, such as the possibility of a collective memory of civilizations.
Also, procedural memory is reducible to brain activity because it has no qualitative content. Keep that in mind.
>>639833
>potentialities
It's good to read this on volitional formations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra
"The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream."
>>639838
Also, real compassion emerges spontaneously without subject/object duality. One feels inseparable from the compassionate act. No concept of giver, receiver, or gift is formed, and it helps disentangle one from karmic residue in storehouse consciousness. This is a phenomenonological practice that requires experience and is possible to learn about in higher bhumis. You can never figure it out with absolute precision. At most you can say negative rebirth, positive rebirth, or end of rebirth after dying.
Also, Buddhist concept of rebirth is different. I don't believe in transmigration or reincarnation, as I am arguing here >>639838 and elsewhere.
The crux of the argument is in my anti-reductionism and issues with emergentism. Post #1 in my ontological defense can be considered as having the main crux in the argument. However, I left my argument out on why qualia is irreducible.
>>639836
The amount of outright bullshit assumptions made here are staggering.
1) there is no such thing as karma.
2) There is no storehouse consciousness. Everything going on in your brain is a chemical process. Everything stored in your memory is a result of biological processes. The consciousness is an abstraction of neural processes.
3) reality is not predominantly suffering. Clearly, your standard for suffering is not equal to mine. Suffering must involve extreme physical or mental anguish and pain. Ethical hunting does not impose this. If your head is smashed into goo instantly by a 20 ton block of lead, you die instantly without suffering. Yet, it is still unethical to do this to men at random. Reality is not suffering, because with a feeling of importance, even the most destitute laborer in the 3rd world will wear a bright smile. It is the feeling of being important that drives men to greatness, and lifts them out of the chains of suffering. Traveling throughout the world, you may find that in community, comes purpose and a feeling of importance, which humanity uses to progress and thrive, as opposed to suffer.
4) because consciousness is an abstraction of chemical processes in the brain, it is arbitrary and meaningless to base an ethical code off the suffering felt by a consciousness disconnected from the body, because such a thing cannot exist outside religion, and no religion applies the standards for consciousness you've supplied here.
5) there is no nirvana.
>>639858
6) other than the obvious species, technological, and intelligence divide, what truly separates humans from other animals is the drive for importance, to be acknowledged and appreciated, to be a part of a community and needed, along with the way these needs are fulfilled. Without this drive, humanity would be a collection of savages, lower than the indigenous tribes in the wilds, no better than the animals. It is not unreasonable to say that humans, among the living beings on the earth, are exceptional. No other animals have achieved what humans have built.
7) Mankind acts as the stewards of the environment, managing populations and sustainably harvesting resources living and nonliving. This is a role we fill out of respect for the environment that enables the sustenance and growth of our societies, our civilizations, our cultures: the crowning achievement of humanity.
>>639858
>2) There is no storehouse consciousness. Everything going on in your brain is a chemical process. Everything stored in your memory is a result of biological processes. The consciousness is an abstraction of neural processes.
Do you know about qualia?
>"Let us reflect upon the matter. Light, in its wave-particle dual form, hits the retina where light sensitive cells convert received light into electrical impulses. These impulses are ion molecules which move from outside the axon to within it. The moving wave of these is the impulse. This impulse travels through the optic nerve and reaches the neuron cells in the occipital lobe from where they are further directed. All of this is physical. There is only pure darkness within the skull. The retina is nowhere to be found. Though it is certainly correlated with physical activity, it is not-physical, yet it exists. Consciousness is ontologically distinct from the physical.
>If we were to zoom into the brain and explore it as if it were a giant machine, factory, or mill, nowhere and in no process would we discuss conscious states such as satisfaction. We might experience the neural correlates of satisfaction, rising levels of the molecule dopamine, but never the experiential felt quality of satisfaction. Indeed, we may be dissatisfied that we have found ourselves within a giant brain. Satisfaction is internally, phenomenologically known; not externally, physically known. It is first person, not third-person knowledge. Consciousness cannot be known by materialism/physicalism and it cannot be a material substance; though, it is correlated to it as mass is correlated to gravity."
>>640101
>The point is: full knowledge of the brain does not tell us anything about the subjective experience of redness or satisfaction. If you lived in a dark room your whole life, studying the neurophysiological underpinnings of the experience of redness, this doesn't tell you how it phenomenologically feels to experience redness. If you finally step outside the dark room and experience redness, you get new phenomenological first-person information. You cannot reduce redness to the neural dynamics of the brain given how the neural machinery does not include experiential qualities.
>MOREOVER: correlation does not prove brain activity generates the mind, the mind causes the brain, brain is only mind, or that mind is only brain and body. For example, there is a perfect correlation between DNA and species, but this correlation does not prove that the DNA causes the species. "Correlation indicates a relationship, but we cannot assume what kind of relationship". What we need for this is metaphysics.
>- Ontologistics video "Mind Transcends Brain" on Youtube"
>>639858
>Everything going on in your brain is a chemical process. Everything stored in your memory is a result of biological processes. The consciousness is an abstraction of neural processes.
My qualitative feeling of pain is not the same thing as cascades of neural activity in brain activity. You can say it depends on it for its existence, but to say it is identical (i.e., eliminativism or token identity physicalism) is ridiculous. Look up "Mary's Thought's Room Experiment".
I'm an anti-reductionist. I like emergentism, but I don't think it's bottom-up.
> It is the feeling of being important that drives men to greatness,
That's just a delusion. Everything you cling to, even your sense of self, is empty of intrinsic self-essence. It always arises in dependence on other factors and is in dynamic flux. Suffering has to do with impermanence and how nothing can be grasped. Your loved ones, sense of importance, and so forth are all fleeting.
>>639869
Also, you don't get what I mean by difference being foundational and constitutive:
>"In other words, philosophy must attempt to think what he calls internal difference, or difference internal to Being itself. Above we noted that however many representational concepts we may adduce in order to characterize a thing, (our example above was a ball), so long as we are using concepts rooted in identity to grasp it, we will still be unable to think down to the level of what makes this, this. Therefore, philosophy suffers from an essential imprecision, which only differential ontology can repair.
>This imprecision is rooted, Deleuze argues, in the Aristotelian moment, specifically in Aristotle’s metaphysics of analogy. Aristotle’s notion of metaphysics as first philosophy is that, while other sciences concentrate on one or another domain of being, metaphysics is to be the science of being qua being. Unlike every other science, (which all study some genus or species of being), the object of the metaphysical science, being qua being, is not a genus. This is because any given genus is differentiated (by way of differences) into species. Any species, beneath its given genus, is fully a member of that genus, but the difference that has so distinguished it, is not. Let us take an example: the genus animal. In this case, the difference, we might say, is rational, by which the genus animal is speciated into the species of man and beast, for Aristotle. Both man and beast are equally members of the genus animal, but rational, the differentia whereby they are separated, is not. Differentiae cannot belong, properly, to the given genus of which they are differentiae, and yet, differences exist, that is, they have being. Therefore, if differences have being, and the differentiae of any given genus cannot belong, properly speaking, to that genus, it follows that being cannot be a genus."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/diff-ont/
>>640106
Reality is an "all-pervading vortex of pure dynamism of life... the minutest, invisible transformations that are perceived internally"
Reality is an always differentiating process without substance, without a "bottom turtle". A processual origami, always folding, unfolding, refolding. Reality operates by concrescences of various intensities or kinds that in the molar sense have the appearance of essentiality; essentialism is wrong because difference is what's foundational and constitutive.
So in these last few posts, I argued for these two things:
1)) irreducibility of qualitative experience
2)) difference being foundational and constitutive rather than essentialism
>>639858
>reality is not predominantly suffering
One final thing: yes, it is. Every single organism will have to deal with one of these three categories:
>1. The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
>2. The anxiety or stress of trying to hold on to things that are constantly changing.
>3. A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.
#3 is the most important one and why I argue difference to be foundational and constitutive. It gives more credence to #3 and helps understand it better. There is fixed self-being to any phenomena, this is a refutation of Object-Oriented Ontology and Greek Substance Theory.
Also, karma means accumulations of causes and effects and their directional trends. It doesn't have any New Agey meaning.
Nothing I am saying is New Agey. It's just complex argument for simple conclusions.
>>640110
>There is fixed self-being
There is no fixed self-being*
>>640110
Okay Schopenhauer. Just because people suffer and it is inevitable doesnt mean suffering is the end (as in goal or point) of life. To claim the meaning of life is to suffer is to give yourself a lnbearly death; you have already given up on using this suffering as a means to ends of your choice.
>>640119
>Schopenhauer
I love Schopenhauer.
>To claim the meaning of life is to suffer is to give yourself a lnbearly death
I never said that. I said suffering defines life due to being concomitant with impermanence and dependent arising.
> you have already given up on using this suffering as a means to ends of your choice.
You misinterpreted.
Also, have you read Schopenhauer? I like his Denial of the Will being necessary for compassion. Not sure if I agree with it entirely though:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#5.3
>>640136
>suffering defines life due to being concomitant with impermanence and dependent arising.
Take out dependent arising. Should have said "concomitant with impermanence and 'difference being foundational and constitutive'". It is another way of saying reality has no core or "bottom turtle". You ever heard the saying "turtles all the way down"?
I am using Western philosophy of Henri Bergson and Giles Delueze to argue for this. Their views correspond with the Buddhist philosophers Nagarjuna and Dharmakirti.
>>640103
> My qualitative feeling of pain is not the same thing as cascades of neural activity in brain activity.
Yes it is. Of course it is! If your nerves don't work, you don't feel pain. If your nervous system is destroyed, you stop feeling anything altogether. Everything about your consciousness, feelings, personality, and self can be reduced to the biochemical processes in your brain.
Rather, to declare the sense of importance to be fleeting and delusional shows how little mental maturity you have. If you suddenly find yourself without friends, family, a productive job (other than some shitty minimum wage counter job), or any kind of influence or impact in others' lives, you will probably go insane. This is why kissless virgin NEETs and solitary homeless people are usually fucked in the brain. It is certainly not a fleeting and insignificant thing. It is what allows people to function properly. Most mass shooters and lone wolf assassin's fall into this kind of category of neglected person, from Lee Harvey Oswald to Adam Lanza to Cho Seung Hui to Eliot Rodgers.
There is no storehouse consciousness. There is no karma. Take your meme philosophy and your hippie nonsense and go back to reddit where you belong. You btfo'd yourself tbqh.
>>640470
>If your nerves don't work, you don't feel pain.
That's because pain is depends on nervous system activity for its existence, but to say they're the same thing is retarded.
"Let us reflect upon the matter. Light, in its wave-particle dual form, hits the retina where light sensitive cells convert received light into electrical impulses. These impulses are ion molecules which move from outside the axon to within it. The moving wave of these is the impulse. This impulse travels through the optic nerve and reaches the neuron cells in the occipital lobe from where they are further directed. All of this is physical. There is only pure darkness within the skull. The retina is nowhere to be found. Though it is certainly correlated with physical activity, it is not-physical, yet it exists. Consciousness is ontologically distinct from the physical.
If we were to zoom into the brain and explore it as if it were a giant machine, factory, or mill, nowhere and in no process would we discuss conscious states such as satisfaction. We might experience the neural correlates of satisfaction, rising levels of the molecule dopamine, but never the experiential felt quality of satisfaction. Indeed, we may be dissatisfied that we have found ourselves within a giant brain. Satisfaction is internally, phenomenologically known; not externally, physically known. It is first person, not third-person knowledge. Consciousness cannot be known by materialism/physicalism and it cannot be a material substance; though, it is correlated to it as mass is correlated to gravity." - Ontologistics video "Mind Transcends Brain" on Youtube
Also, look up Mary's Thought Room Experiment.
I'm not denying the causal importance of the brain.
Look up Qualia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
erwin schrodinger believed qualia to be irreducible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Erwin_Schr.C3.B6dinger
I'm talking about high-level philosophy and you're just giving me bullshit responses.
>>640470
Also, watch the anime Texhnolyze to see how I view mankind:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=ELrmUroR2hqNY
It picks up around episode 7 or 8. It's 22 episodes long, being slow at the start and I highly recommend watching it. It's not like most anime.
“The human phenomenon is but the sum
Of densely coiled layers of illusion
Each of which winds itself on the supreme insanity
That there are persons of any kind
When all there can be is mindless mirrors
Laughing and screaming as they parade about
in an endless dream”
- Thomas Ligotti
>>640705
>but to say they're the same thing is retarded.
They are the same thing. YOU are the retard here. For someone who claims to have a stem degree you're not really up to date on biology.
>I'm talking about high-level philosophy and you're just giving me bullshit responses.
I'm giving you a dose of reality and you're giving me hippie nonsense under the guise of "high-level philosophy."
>>640808
>Also, watch the anime
And in the trash it goes.
>>641184
>They are the same thing. YOU are the retard here. For someone who claims to have a stem degree you're not really up to date on biology.
I am up to date with biology. A lot of famous Neuroscientists, like Christof Koch, do not believe they are the same thing. That's called token-identity physicalism and is not a necessary logical entailment of Neuroscience research. No one denies qualitative phenomenal experience depends on brain existence for their reality. What they deny is they are conflated, or the same thing, which is metaphysics and not substantiated by empirical research.
Let's say you touch something hot. Nooiceptors are triggers on your skin, and then a signal is sent through your spinothalamic tract where cascades of neural activity occur in the somatosensory cortex, conveying pain. To say the sensation of pain is identical with the somatosensory cortex ignores the raw, qualitative sensation of it. The mechanical activity of the somatosensory cortex is not the phenomenal sensation unless you're zombie. Look at Mary's Thought Room experiment:
>
Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? [4]
Erwin Schrodinger agrees with me.
>>641184
>I'm giving you a dose of reality and you're giving me hippie nonsense under the guise of "high-level philosophy."
Why don't you email Christof Koch then too? Look at his "Consciousness Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist". He is a leader in research of finding neurobiological correlates of consciousness, but he is also a panexperientialist (i.e., matter and mind are concurrent and complexify as complexity of interactions increases; his view would view swarm intelligence of ant colonies as constitutive of a phenomenological mind too).
>And in the trash it goes.
You're trash, itself. You think you're so intelligent, but you haven't even looked into all the references I've given. Look at the "hard problem of consciousness". There are plenty of scholars that don't agree with reductive physicalism or eliminativism. They are unfalsifiable and not proven by Neuroscience.
>""I am a neuroscientist and so 99% of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don't actually know this. We really don't. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith. Perhaps the brain is something like a complex radio receiver that integrates consciousness signals that float around in some form. Perhaps one part of visual cortex is important for decoding the bandwidth that contains motion consciousness and another part of the brain is critical to decoding the bandwith that contains our will. So damage to brain regions may alter our ability to express certain kinds of conscious experience rather than being the causal source of consciousness itself. " "I don't actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view-its also unfalsifiable" (Lieberman, 2012).
>>641210
>>641205
how can first-person experience with its felt, phenomenal properties be entirely reduced to quantitative terms, which is all a model depicts? How can the neural circuitry (e.g., synchronized firing all over the brain, reciprocal firing, neural oscillitations, parallel processing, thalamocortical loops, and etc.), the neurotransmitter systems (e.g., neurotransmitters like sertonin released from pre-synaptic membrane to post-synaptic receptors in synaptic clefts), the excitatory/inhibitory properties of neurotransmitters (i.e., that lead to an action potential in the axon hillock), the molecular mechanisms in neurobiology (e.g., chromosomes containing DNA in the nucleus), and so forth, be strictly identical with the qualitative component of consciousness? By saying subjective experience is purely reducible to neurological phenomena and thus it's eliminated, we overlook the important factor of how it feels and its causal function. Thus, consciousness is not reducible to neural activity.
I'm saying, emergentism makes more sense, the idea that experience emerges from the proper brain activity, but there is an issue with explaining explicit memory based off emergentism when we taken an anti-reductionist view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireductionism
>>641205 (You)
>>641210 (You)
>>641214 (You)
You need to realize logical positivism ((i.e., eliminate metaphysics by reducing all meaningful sentences to either logical/mathematical truths or observation statements) has been refuted, and metaphysical questions are still fair game.
W.V. Quine did a good job showing why Logical Positivism is ridiculous in his paper (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html):
The problem that this classic paper lays out is that logical positivism assumes that there exists a distinction between theoretical and observational sentences, such that for any theoretical sentence, it is possible to enumerate the observational sentences that would verify it.
However, Quine attacks all of that position. According to him, it's not possible to distinguish between theoretical and observational statements, and it's not possible to state a set of sentences whose truth would verify or falsify any given sentence.
>>641184
>hippie nonsense under the guise of "high-level philosophy."
Like I've said, look at Christof Koch and "hard problem of consciousness".
I'm not a hippie either. Most hippies have a more optimistic view of reality, being drawn towards things like Neo-Advaita or Shamanistic feel-good nonsense. They also don't understand the Western philosophical dialectic.
I'm referencing figures like Schopenahuer, Henri Bergson (who won Nobel Prize), Erwin Schrodinger (who actually agrees qualia was irreducible), David Chalmers, and so forth, and you call me a hippie? Fuck you.
All you have are ad hominems at this point. Just because mental states supervene on brain states does not mean they are reducible to them.
>>626562
He's vegan tho
>>639584
They actually didnt cut the stomachs open, when they die they fill up with gas and their insides arent used to the lesser pressure above water anyways so they pop on their own.
>>627177
I ate some whale meat in Japan. You are not missing much. Its greasy and gross.
>>626663
Ty
>>641226
Just because it looks like Windows is running on your PC doesn't mean that if you smash it, Windows won't somehow continue to execute on a computational substrate consisting of thin air dur hur derp de hur
Go bust open a radio controlled toy car. Where's the computer? There isn't one. That's you. It doesn't need any onboard processing because it has you to control it.
The brain is not an antennae. Antennae are extremely simple. The brain isn't. Structurally the closest analogy is a computer. If we aren't our brains but something which controls us remotely, we wouldn't have brains to begin with. They wouldn't be necessary for anything.
>>642729
>Just because it looks like Windows is running on your PC doesn't mean that if you smash it, Windows won't somehow continue to execute on a computational substrate consisting of thin air dur hur derp de hur
Like I've said, you idiot, you don't know to discuss philosophy without sounding like an idiot. My point is, to say the quantative neurobiological activity is the same thing as the higher-order thought that renders our sensations as conscious or qualitative is ridiculous. A felt property is not the same thing as cold machinations that are devoid of subjectivity. I gave you specific arguments for that, which you ignore because you're an idiot.
Just because qualitative sensation supervenes on proper brain activity does not make it conflated. It's like saying A --> B, and then from there you say is A is B or B is A.
Also, I'm more like a panexperientialist / panpsychist which is monist.
>The brain is not an antennae.
You missed the point of his example. It's meant to illustrate the nature of unfalsifiability which my logical positivist example got into. >>641217
>If we aren't our brains but something which controls us remotely, we wouldn't have brains to begin with.
There is no rigid sense of "I". Even with Default Mode Network and other theoretical neurobiological models trying to explain self, it is still a disparate, transparent process.
I am losing my patience with you, and I'm getting tired of your cocky, haughty tone.
>>642813
>Also, I'm more like a panexperientialist / panpsychist which is monist.
Correction: I am a monist but in a different way than that. I like emergentism but my approach is based off an issue I perceive in emergentism. Also, I don't believe in an intrinsic nature or ground to phenomena
Are there seriously two retards in this thread arguing about Schopenhauer for the last fucking MONTH.
WHALING IS BAD, ASIANS ARE SICK FUCKS, LET IT GO.
Really though if environmentalists weren't such pursues they'd actually commit acts of terror on people like these guys.
>>642995
there is nothing wrong with whaling. cry me a river.
>>643005
That's because of moral relativism.
I think it's wrong and I'll fucking kill you.
What then?
