I think the term you are looking for is indifference, it's like a zero on the scale between suffering and joy, not really a problem. Interpersonal comparisons, or how to value my joy relative to yours....

Thank you for sharing this most interesting interview on Disability, Pain and Morality with Dr Joel Reynolds. I can relate to his brother and mother since becoming disabled over a decade ago, with mobility issues and various kinds of chronic pain (severe migraines, neuropathic and inflammatory). How those (not all, but most I'd say from experience) in charge (Blue badge, doctors, policy makers etc) demean and ignore chronically ill people. We are, after all, still worthy. Contributing in our own distinct ways.

Yes, disability will most probably happen to every one of us, if not before 'old age'. And it is a societal issue that begs addressing (as does diet, as another important issue - discussed on this programme). Disability and chronic pain just aren't discussed enough.

For one to become chronically ill with severe chronic pain it is a very isolating experience. One lived every day and every night.

However, each of us lives in an individual bubble and rarely reaches out to 'the other' and therefore it remains 'not my problem'.

I'll listen to this talk again sometime, there's a lot there! And, I'm inspired to read more about how the Japanese live - what differences there are to Western societies.

> I'm soo confused why they keep talking about the standard model in relation to gravity.

There's a standard model of particle physics, which the one you are referring to (and the original btw), and there's a standard model of cosmology called Lambda CDM. Being a particle physics guy I've only ever called it Lambda CDM.

You have a typo there, the end should be Q.E.D.

I think that a lot of people do honestly care about all the issues you listed.

As for what it actually looks like, well, that depends. In the best case, care toward something entails action. In the case of those issues, various actions which materially affect those issues on varying scales, from signing petitions or giving to charity to taking in refugees or other direct action.

Yes people lie about caring for various reasons. But I think a feeling of genuine care toward something compells people into action to some degree. Most people may fall short of self-directed effort to seek and find effective action. However possesing a passive feeling of care may make someone more likely to take up the oppertunity when it arises, they may throw change in the charity box when they see one, they may sign up to a protest when asked, etc.

Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha

Isn't that the whole point. We should concentrate on ideas that line up with physical experiments. We don't need thought experiments on ideas that contradict results from physical experiments.

> That's the entire point of capitalism.

Technically, it is your perception of what the entire point of capitalism is.

I don't disagree that capitalism has many negative side effects, I am merely suggesting that we concern ourselves with accuracy of our beliefs and assignment of guilt - government could moderate capitalism, but capitalism itself is often the only entity taken into consideration.

An important question: does the government set school curriculum so as to keep the masses dumb, so capitalism can function without informed resistance? It is certainly plausible!

> We might be able to limit exploitation, but it can never be eliminated under capitalism. And so as long as it continues, exploitation is a given, and this will always empower justifying ideologies for that exploitation.

That future you're seeing: do you realize that it is virtualized?

> The author doesn't get into this, but is complaining about the intolerance from liberals. This intolerance is real, but the reason for it's existence isn't just bad people. It's the way our society is materially structured.

The metaphysical organization of our society (essentially: how people think, which generates the "reality" they consider) seems much more important to me.

What is holiness/divinity supposed to be? It's a concept that seems to appear across religions and cultures. Pagan religions from Europe, East Asia and pacific islands have sacred mountains, sacred forests and sacred leaders. Buddhist, Hindu and Abrahamic religions also have holy sites and artefacts. What does this divine status mean in a metaphysical sense? And how does a person or place achieve it?

If you can physically test something, there’s no need for the thought experiment. Google it, or I guess I can google it for you

> W t f are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

> Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2] The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[3] > > Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions of:[4] > > - What there is > > - What it is like > > Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.[5]

> We need to know how much there are resources in order to articulate a pareto efficient distribution of them.

Best get cracking then! Maybe it's a good idea to take an ontology textbook with you on your journeys.

> What makes you to distort everything that has value and is the easiest part to grasp of the subject matter?

Technically, from a scientific perspective, your mind is what makes "me" "do" that.

And as luck would have it: it is rarely difficult to get one's counterpart enthusiastically involved in the manufacture of a big show.

I still don't understand how thought experiments which contradict with reality can be more useful that thought experiments which line up with reality.

You can... use the scientific method to figure out ethical questions? Are you sure? Let's see...

Observation: murder exists

Hypothesis: murder is wrong

This already violates the scientific method, because the hypothesis doesn't explain the observation in the first place. Murder being wrong doesn't explain why it exists. Let's try it another way.

Observation: people think murder is wrong

Hypothesis: murder is wrong

Now we're getting somewhere! Except, well, we already have scientific explanations for why people think murder is wrong (namely in the fields of evolutionary biology and sociology). This extra hypothesis seems to be a violation of Occam's razor. But let's say those other explanations are insufficient. What's the next step? Predictions, of course! Now, what predictions does the hypothesis "murder is wrong" make? Well... it doesn't seem to make any predictions. At most, one could argue that, if the hypothesis "murder is wrong" is going to be scientifically meaningful, it must make the prediction "we will be able to build a measurement device that measures the "wrongness" of murder". But of course, no one knows how to build that device. If not unscientific in principle, this hypothesis at the very least seems to be outside what current science can discover.

Do you disagree? Do you think the hypothesis "murder is wrong" makes any other testable (in principle or in practice) predictions?

So I gather..

I keep getting downvoted in this cancerous sub . Just google basic or advanced thought experiments. Also read the definition of metaphysics — there are some things that physically cannot be tested and we must use logic and thought experiments to make headway.

Nowhere to be found? Its everywhere we look- virtually every galaxy/galaxy cluster displays evidence of the gravitational influence of dark matter, same for the lensing of more distant galaxies and galaxy clusters. As the blog/essay admits in the second paragraph, what is absent are viable candidates for dark matter particles... but then we have no real idea whether its even constituted by a type of particle in the first place, this is only one proposal among many.

I don't think MOND should be categorically ruled out, for all time; new proposals add something to scientific inquiry even when they don't turn out to be correct, but MOND has a tough road ahead if its ever to be considered legitimately competitive with its rival theory.

>hasn’t Einstein been largely proven correct? Like every time?

Like, every single mother effin' time, even after almost a century.

W t f are you talking about?

We need to know how much there are resources in order to articulate a pareto efficient distribution of them. What makes you to distort everything that has value and is the easiest part to grasp of the subject matter?

Yes, and even if one considers humans simply as experiencers, we still have a whole lot of experiences that are not easily classifiable into either suffering or joy.

When I'm driving my car on an empty highway, not thinking about anything, and not really paying attention to the road, am I experiencing suffering, or joy? What about when I brush my teeth? What about when I'm in a meeting at work that's not exactly boring but not exactly interesting?

And, of course, there are a bunch of experiences that seem to be complicated mixtures of suffering and joy, and I'm not just talking about that Hellraiser stuff. When I read a stupid comment on Twitter that makes me mad but also makes me feel smarter than that dope, am I experiencing more suffering, or more joy? What about when I laugh at an offensive joke, while also feeling ashamed for laughing? What about when I go to a horror movie and get scared for fun?

I still don't understand. Doesn't this example then show that sure do your meta physics but don't every try and say that ideas apply to the real world of physics.

Aren't you saying, philosophers should keep their noses out of anything to do with the real world.

I'm happy either way, but when someone does some lsd and some metaphysics, they need to remember they are doing metaphysics which doesn't apply to reality.

The issue is when a philosopher does some metaphysics that doesn't' apply to reality and then for no reason thinks they have some deep insights into physics and reality.

edit: going back to the article it's like, I got this nice theory MOND from a philosophy point of view, it doesn't at all match up with reality and observations, maybe the whole idea of physics and reality is wrong.

From the article:

>If we accept the reality of experience, it’s hard to deny that the universe has value built in. The good must derive from reducing suffering and promoting bliss, every coherent conception of it must ultimately point to this fact. If we buy the self-evident fact that conscious valence is real, we get an ought from an is.
>
>Given this strong argument for moral realism, I find it hard to imagine an ultimate ethical theory that isn’t based on some form of utilitarianism. Deontological and virtue ethics may provide good tools for achieving good outcomes, but they don’t get to the heart of the matter. Any coherent ethical theory must aim to attain a world-state with less suffering. This ultimately reduces to a form of utilitarianism that is based on measuring the quality of conscious experience, often referred to as valence utilitarianism.1

So the argument here is: if you accept the premise that utilitarianism is the only option, then you must conclude that utilitarianism is the only option.

Okay then.

Defacing the image of a loved one can be a cathartic release if there's pent up tension.

Video game violence can also be a cathartic release. Especially if there is pent up fear, or frustration, with a group of people.

[deleted]

[deleted]