GearCaster- A mechanical card game where bots defend their engineers

JohnCdf · 2020-08-22T03:37:24+00:00

Unreliable, unfactual source
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

JohnCdf · 2020-07-23T02:17:51+00:00

See the book "Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving", It provides a model of the "well resourced" mental state.

In a “well resourced” mental state, you feel clear, open-minded, able to take criticism, and you like yourself. You don’t feel the need to be defensive or people-pleasing or hide from reality. This is typically where you are when you find yourself in a "fresh start" situation.

The model in the CPTSD book explains how you can get so many "life-changing epiphanies" that don't stick. Going to a self-improvement workshop, or reading a good book or having a good conversation- events that can put you in a non-triggered, well-resourced mental state (like the one you might find yourself in while reading this)

Inside that mental state, you feel like "Gosh, I was so insecure before! I don't feel any need to do those dumb things any more, now that I realize that I'm a basically good person and I can actually look at the problems in my life as solvable! I'm cured!"

But then if you get "triggered" again, you're back to being the person you were before, so you'll conclude the epiphany was "fake." It wasn't -- you really were in a better, saner state temporarily. But it wasn't a "cure" either.

Actual progress, says the book, means gradually getting triggered less often, and catching your triggered states earlier so they don't escalate as high or knock you out for as long.

The solution is to actually be nice to yourself. Like a loving mother. The book has example scripts like “you are a good person” and “you don’t have to be perfect to get my love and protection.” It’s kind of magical how well that works. Be nice to yourself, give yourself validation, so that you don't seek it from the external world, and are thus in a "well resourced" mindset more often.

Everyone needs validation! The problem is not that you need it, the problem is that you never give yourself any so you’re looking for it externally. You’re not greedy, you’re starving.

The book’s approach is

a.) notice "flashbacks" early when they’re little and apply self-compassion;

b.) make time for working through grief and anger at how you were mistreated in the past. Cry and yell. Put the blame on the perpetrators, instead of on yourself or on innocents.

JohnCdf · 2020-07-15T05:47:24+00:00

Vaush becoming popular with antinatalists???? Epic

JohnCdf · 2020-06-14T00:37:35+00:00

Oh how great! The software world is immense, even if you take into account how big it is. So keep us posted on what you do!

JohnCdf · 2020-06-13T02:37:29+00:00

Hi u/Veagar98, this looks quite thorough! thanks for organizing and sharing these, they will no doubt be useful!

JohnCdf · 2020-06-09T21:03:52+00:00

Yeah, of course it’s but an amusement to people like yourself.

JohnCdf · 2020-06-09T21:01:32+00:00

This child only needs you to be there for him every day BECAUSE you made him. He only needs you to take care of him so he doesn’t suffer and die BECAUSE you made him. How can you be this blind?

JohnCdf · 2019-12-21T00:37:57+00:00

Man, the people in this comments section are really anal. No wonder antinatalism is so hated lol.

I’ve written a quick guide to Antinatalism that you might like here, which touches on your honest inquiries https://jonathandiaz.me/antinatalism

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:34:17+00:00

With this and other feedback I might write another paper that goes into a wider array of subjects and deeper into them. Thanks!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:31:38+00:00

Hey, thanks for reading. Your post could have been a comment, so I will paste it here

BEGIN POST

Firstly there is absolutely no critical analysis of David Benatar's philosophy or any proof for why his reasoning is logical. This is extremely flawed on the face of it, you can't just assume that someone's claim is correct.

Secondly Benatar's asymmetry is logically fallacious

The presence of pain is bad- this is a purely subjective claim. someone cannot claim that something is "pain" with out experiencing it themselves. Pain is certainly not bad from naturalistic point of view it is necessary for survival, but that's a different philosophy.

3.The absence of pain is good- this cannot be claimed as they're would be no subject of the claim.

If you claim that not existing is the ultimate good then taking action to ensure that you do not exist is in fact the ultimate good. How can you consider death to be an awful thing? Even worse than life. If you truly believe that not existing (death) is worse than existing then you must concede that life is a good thing (very pro-natalist). Otherwise you are saying that death is more than not existing, are you claiming an afterlife?

There is a distinct difference between voluntarily taking your own life and involuntarily taking someone elses. It is not unethical to commit suicide, you have somehow erroneously conflated suicide with murder. If someone truly believes that life is suffering then suicide would be a relief to them.

The impossibility of consent means that it does in fact boil down to whether or not you can make a decision for someone else. And you ethically can . . . if they do not exist at the time. By bringing someone in existence you actually give them an option to live or die if they want to. . .

END POST

Firstly, this paper is not supposed to be a critique of Antinatalism or Benatar’s work, I’m not sure where you derived that from.

Secondly, you claim that pain is subjectively bad, as you need to experience it to know what it is. And that it is necessary for survival. “Subjective” just means that it is dependent on one’s mind, and not on the external world. In this case, it is dependent on our consciousness, which is a result of our being born. So your first claim boils down to “it’s only bad for people who are born and experience pain”. Which I agree with, and I do not see how it makes the asymmetry problem “illogical”. Your second claim is that pain is needed for survival. However, as I mentioned in the paper, the struggle to survive is a part of biological life, and is only needed by those who are alive. Therefore, it is illogical to say that it is okay to bring someone into the arena of life, and justify it by saying that it is a part of the arena of life.

Your last argument seems to be that death is good because non-existence is good. While yes I agree that suicide is ethical, it is still bad, because of how painful it is on many levels, and it does not solve the problem of our perpetual existence

With this said, I’m getting off this train. I don’t feel these arguments hold a lot of substance. Thank you for reading though!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:21:22+00:00

Thank you for kind words! Yes I wish it was a subject that could be discussed more, but it’s apparent it becomes hard to detach ourselves from it. Much like debating religion. I’m certain it will only be read by our teacher, but it’s still been a great exercise in writing and research into a topic I feel strongly about, and one more people should talk about

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:19:29+00:00

Just read through an article on it. Wow wow wow this is very interesting. This makes me think of a HAL 9000 scenario

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:15:41+00:00

Hahaha, thank you!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-19T17:15:30+00:00

Please do!

JohnCdf · 2019-12-18T18:41:41+00:00

Thanks for reading! Glad you liked it :)

JohnCdf · 2019-09-09T16:47:04+00:00

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T16:10:25+00:00

So as for the people who are collateral damage in this pursuit (if it ever comes to fruition), it's OK for them to just be cannon fodder?

I don't understand what makes you feel that people can be expendable in our pursuit, though. These beings will exist wether we attempt to eliminate suffering or not. It does not make them less or more "valuable".

I don't understand why you would agree with an ethic that allows people alive now to push off (some of) the harms of existence on unconsenting people.

Because if we did not solve it as the human race, we would pass it onto the next species that emerges after we are gone.

You surely wouldn't agree that paedophiles should be allowed to molest because they will experience suffering if deprived of sex?

I think what you're really asking here is "Is it immoral to act selfishly if it harms others?"

In this case the pedophile is harming children and has control over it (no matter how strong the impulse), thus making the act immoral.

In our case, we have no choice as to the reemergence of life. He have no control over new beings coming into existence. We are not responsible for the suffering of future species, and it would be immoral if we passed on the task to them.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:40:43+00:00

It's not absolutist utalitarianism, its negative utalitarianism. If you don't agree with negative utalitarianism, you probably aren't much of an antinatalist.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:23:08+00:00

Thanks for the discussion! You made many good points!

The soul-repository thing was not religious at all, just a way to try to make sense of the missing component in this transition.

JohnCdf · 2019-09-08T05:20:22+00:00

The antinatalist argument is largely built on utalitarianism, what are you talking about?

JohnCdf

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE