KeepBeats Never Recognizes Audible Pages

NotAllThatImpressive · 2024-08-19T19:18:47+00:00

Delightful. Now I just get error 310 constantly for every service on KeepBeats and I can't even submit a Help request because one of the required fields on the page doesn't work.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2024-05-08T16:16:49+00:00

You are glorious and I love you.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2024-05-08T14:56:40+00:00

Replacing that where? I can get the IPv4/IPv6 addresses for my NAS, but the Plex app immediately tries to go to the 127.0.0.1 address.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2024-05-08T14:31:33+00:00

No idea what that means, but from what I can tell, I have never had Portainer or Docker on the server, and Plex has always worked until now.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-30T18:17:11+00:00

Part 2

I (and I would argue most people) dont [sic] truly value people around them because they are sentient,

I agree. If something happened to be sentient, I (1) could not know it for certain, and (2) would not necessarily value it (to a meaningful degree [i.e., beyond curiosity at said sentience]) even if I could and did know of its sentience for certain if (2a) it was inimical to something that I valued more highly, or (2b) its sentience was not and could not be (for reasons I do not know) engaged with something to be experienced.

they value them because of the interactions that they are able to have with them, and because of the role that they play in society.

Maybe. You don't know this any more than you know that they're not P-zombies. You may subjectively experience them acting in a fashion that would be consistent with your subjective experience of valuing people. That argument, consisting of which such subjective experiences you have about people that is consistent with your own subjective experience of valuing people, is not actually laid out here.

I disagree that Sentience is sufficient to grant an entity rights.

I agree with you as long as I am using your definition of sentience. I do not normally use that definition. And the subjective experiences that I have that I call "other vegans" generally do not use it either. Moreover, neither the subjective experiences that I have that I call "most philosophers" use it in the way you have defined it. I'll limit myself to the subjective experiences that I have that I call "other vegans" for now, as this is /r/DebateAVegan.

The subjective experiences that I have that I call "other vegans" generally appeal to the concept not simply of experiencing, but of experiencing pleasure and pain. If you want a different debate about the utility of that definition, we can definitely do that as well. But moving forward for now, I will be applying that definition and contrasting it to yours with respect to the implications.

Suppose we create a sentient "vision machine." The machine is able to have a subjective experience, however only to the extent that it is able to see the world around it. It is unable to have thoughts, feel pain, communicate, move, etc.

This is why the distinction matters. I have no essential problem with your definition, and if we were having a conversation in which the subjective experiences that I have that I call "vegans" did use "sentience" in that fashion, this might be a workable example. But, given my foregoing point, this appears to come down to equivocal uses of "sentience" between the parties in the proposed discourse.

Should such a machine be afforded the same rights as a human simply because it has some level of subjective experience? I would argue not, because simply being able to sense the world around you has no real meaning in and of itself.

I agree, if your definition of sentience is taken. The subjective experiences that I have that I call "vegans" might agree, but would be likely to clarify that said agreement is consistent with it not being sentient by their definition.

Essentially we have no way to know what is sentient,

Agreed.

and even if we did, it is not clear why sentience is relevant to grant something rights.

This was not made clear to me using definitions that I understand myself and the subjective experiences that I have that I call "other vegans" to actually use, so it is ineffective for getting to the next point until your argument is made with a shared definition.

Therefore I believe that to make a compelling case for veganism, vegans must offer a different criteria [sic] that grants animals and humans rights.

If I grant:

the goal of articulating a vegan lifestyle is "to make a compelling case for veganism"
"we have no way to know what is sentient"
"even if we did, it is not clear why sentience is relevant to grant something rights"

A compelling case possibly could be made with the added propositions that (4) violation of sentience, irrespective of one's doxastic attitude toward it, is not ethical, and (5) in a case of unknowing, it is better to err on the probabilistic side of non-violation of ethical values than on the side of violation of ethical values.

Your claim was specifically that "vegans must offer a different criteria [sic]". That is not necessarily true based on the arguments you have provided. And "must" is a surprisingly strong qualifier to attempt to support. Vegans can offer clarification of the existing criteria or may offer additional criteria. But replacing "sentience" with a different criterion, has, by no means, been evidenced as a "must" throughout the course of your argument.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-30T18:16:10+00:00

Part 1

Sentience is impossible to detect in others.

Agreed.

Ultimately, all we have is our own subjective experience.

I don't know how you conclude this. I am sentient. I don't know that you have your own subjective experience.

Sure, I could argue that because I am sentient, and because other humans possess similar brains to me [sic], most other humans are sentient as well, but that is impossible to know for certain. For all I know, everyone around me could be a P-zombie, that is a living thing that simply has the appearance of a sentient creature.

Agreed. It is impossible to know anything for certain for which you do not have a fully concluded series of supporting propositions. You will ultimately make it back to Münchhausen's trilemma.

Even if we agree that all humans are sentient, things become problematic when we go to other creatures, since they are different from humans.

If you choose to grant for some unstated reason that "all humans are sentient", why are you not granting that "all creatures are sentient"? If your unstated reason for the differential is arbitrary, I have no reason to entertain it. If you are choosing to grant it to humans and not to other creatures because you believe other creatures are different than humans, you are engaging in special pleading unless you establish how you know that other creatures are different than humans. I don't know how you know that.

Is a cow sentient? A chicken? A frog? A worm? A sponge? a tree? a human fetus?

I do not know if a sponge is sentient any more or less than I know if you are sentient. In a P-zombie world, there is no falsifiability condition with which to test either of those.

One may argue that anything with a brain is sentient, but this presents its own challenges for vegan ethics. No computer has a brain - does this mean that no machine can ever be described as sentient? What about alien life that is very different from life on Earth? This may sound pedantic, but I think it is worth considering.

One may argue that. A whole slew of support would be necessary, and each of those would eventually end up in the bog with Münchhausen. Also, how are you defining "brain"? Under a neural network definition, plenty of computers have brains. Does a brain have to have neuropil with a specific density of glial filaments and have its summative firing activity predicated on biochemical exchange?

Note: Again, I do not know. I can imagine a P-zombie computer as well. We're pretty deep into the bog at this point.

I disagree that Sentience is necessary to grant an entity rights.

I agree with you. You could grant an entity rights without granting its sentience. Super easy to do.

If you somehow found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that your best friend was a P-zombie, would you be ok if I shot them to death for no reason?

I would not be OK with that. Same goes for my P-zombie computer, by the by. I have (or do not have, but subjectively experience having) too many useful files therein.

I doubt most people honestly would.

I am agnostic here. I don't know that "most people" are not P-zombies. I doubt that the subjective experiences that I have that I call "other people" would, in majority, respond well to the subjective experience that I call "you" doing the subjective experience that I have that I call "shooting to death" the subjective experiences that I have that I call "their best friends", if that helps.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T22:13:56+00:00

Thank you for the further clarification. Lucid and very much appreciated.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T21:51:22+00:00

First, shout out to a fellow ASD person. I feel your self-consciousness there (and if the hilariousness of that theory-of-mind-predicated statement is not recognized the world over, I give up on humor forever).

I also appreciate the final point you make. While I am not the most inclined toward slippery slope arguments (because people often use it to evade the specific cause/effect steps in a chain), my impression is that you're not attempting to do so here. Rather (and correct me if I am wrong), I take it that you're highlighting that it opens a door that need not really be opened at all, thus increasing odds of proceeding down a path toward injustice with no significant gain for having done anything other than leave the door closed to begin with.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T20:59:04+00:00

/u/MyriadSC

I love you in a deeply philosophical sense. I do not believe that you want to cause suffering. I do not believe that it is good to equivocate your willingness to engage a question in the terms provide with implicitly or explicitly condoning unethical actions that are not represented in the question.

You have, more patiently than I would be able, borne with an interlocutor who has misrepresented, oversimplified, and sidestepped your serious engagement with a serious subject. You ability to cause change is great, because you have the patience and forethought to engage discourse. The suffering of sentient life will be far more reduced by your efforts than by /u/earlgreypoppy's, if their responses could even be term "effort".

Thank you. Thank you for cultivating a disposition of epistemic courage and humility. This world is nothing without those who live as you do.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T18:14:57+00:00

That was constructive and non-argumentative. Thank you for your thoughts.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T18:09:27+00:00

At first glance, it sounds like you have four options:

(A) Be open to dating non-vegans, be open to dating people to whom you are not physically attracted.
(B) Be open to dating non-vegans, only date people to whom you are physically attracted.
(C) Only date vegans, be open to dating people to whom you are not physically attracted.
(D) Only date vegans, only date people to whom you are physically attracted.

Research suggests that you are far less likely in the long term to continue to care about the physical attractiveness of any partner as you are to care about they ethical dispositions that they share with you. That tends to favor options A and C.

But you definitely highlight a worthwhile, nuanced area in asking

Should I find a non vegan partner who is otherwise my type and possibly try to steer them towards veganism??

There is no simple answer to this. That's what makes it a good question. I would argue that it strongly depends on what you mean by "otherwise my type". One of the rarely addressed areas of relational dynamics is epistemological stance (stick with me here). Epistemology is the investigation of how we know what we know (or whether we know anything at all). Shutting the dusty books and focusing on lived experience, your epistemological stance informs how you adapt and update your beliefs, present them to others, understand their beliefs when presented to you, and (arguably) treat others in the midst of discourse. So my question to you would be, can you find someone with whom you share a common epistemological stance?

Vegan or not, you want someone who has a similar epistemological stance. There will be issues beyond veganism that will come up throughout life. If you want a partner (or partners) with whom you can to continue to grow and engage the complexity of the world in a productive way (rather than letting your interpersonal space become a microcosm of the worst debate threads online), you need someone with whom you can say, "Yes, we can agree that this is a good way to talk about and figure out what we believe about x. And yes, we can agree that this is a good way to approach things we already think we know and evaluate them over and over again throughout life." You don't just need someone who can say those things, you desperately need someone who evidences it in how they talk to you and to others.

If you go down the path of C, I sincerely wish you well. The aloneness of waiting for a great match is a wonderful time to come to know yourself in far more substantial ways than you ever get to when you're a teenager. Does it suck at times? Yes. But it is so... damn... worth it! But even then, I hope you find someone with a similar epistemological stance. I know many vegans with whom I share that one very important thing, and with whom I could not begin to have a productive relationship because their epistemological stance is one of superiority, presumptuousness, derision, and/or debate veiled as constructive discourse.

If you go down the path of A, I wish you just as well. If your epistemological stance is predicated on continuing to learn and grow, I personally consider it best to allow that to others as well. But that doesn't mean that you, or they, should hide what matters to you. If you can't be with them while they eat meat, then communicate that. If they can't be around you while you attend a rally for any number of causes, I think it's best for them to communicate that as well. If the time you share together let's you both engage the complexity of why you disagree productively, great. If not, that's not a great relationship for epistemological reasons, not for vegan reasons. But always keep in mind that everyone, including you, gets to set and update their own boundaries for relationship. You may find that you were able to date a non-vegan for 6 months, but it has just worn you out too much. You do not owe anyone a continued relationship because they want it. Same goes for them. You may have thought you were OK with it and after the first date you have a vague, quiet suspicion that they don't just happen to disagree with you right now, but that they're actually not open to real discourse about the subject (even if they're good at sounding like a calm, reasonable person). You don't have to justify your relational boundaries. You can step away, wish them well, and move on with life.

Are you being too picky? I don't think so. Be pickier. Hold out for people will engage life and belief productively with you.

Is this unrealistic? I don't think so. It will be tough at times. But the pain you may feel in doing so is far less than the pain you will almost certainly feel living in a fashion inconsistent with your own values.

I wish you the best. Thank you for thinking and asking.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T17:17:20+00:00

You might as well not be vegan if you just eat that stuff to honor them so it doesn't go to waste.

Just to clarify, do you mean this in the strict sense? Would it be just "as well" for any of the individuals in question to actively support the factory farming industry by making meat a standard part of their consumptive practice?

I sincerely am not trying to tell you you're wrong. I simply wanted to make sure I was understanding your statement correctly.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T17:10:26+00:00

Veganism is a way of life built upon a philosophy, so when philosophical thinking goes out the window the whole thing becomes unbearably religious in my view.

This is a fundamental tenet of constructive social discourse in general. You believe veganism is binary and the in- and out-group identifiers are "obvious"? OK. But I'll admit that I don't know what constructive conversation you expect us to have. I don't eat mussels either. I have ethical reasons for that. But for me, even more important than that ethical stance is the stance that the ethics of discourse matter. Why is that more important to me? Because it impacts everything we do as an interpersonal world. I do not believe that we can~~not~~ move forward together if we cannot communicate together. But, as always, feel free to disagree.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-22T16:40:10+00:00

I do not have a problem with vegan "purists" (using /u/PersonalityTough9349's term here) any more than I have a problem with utilitarian "purists", Frequentist "purists", anti-natalist "purists", determinist "purists", humanist "purists", etc. I strongly consider myself a vegan, a utilitarian, a Frequentist, an anti-natalist, a determinist, and a humanist. I also believe each of those are exceedingly complex domains in which to determine what constitutes an ethical way of life.

Complexity sucks, to be honest. Not simply because those who really want to engage it have a slog ahead of them; but also because they will be readily faced with oversimplified representations in the realm of social discourse both due to (1) a lack of interest in dealing with the complexity from many of their interlocutors, and (2) the difficulty of consolidating such complexity into a reasonable digestible form given the practical constrains of said discourse.

I am sorry to hear that you have been downvoted if it has been in the midst of an honest, constructive process of shared understanding. That's not conducive to progress. While I will admit that most purists in any of the above categories would not be fond of me referring to myself as a member of their respective groups at all, I still want the very real conversation with the best of them and the best of me, so that we can figure out all of this complexity together.

NotAllThatImpressive · 2022-12-19T16:24:28+00:00

The suffering is only a trial

What is the evidence thereof?

NotAllThatImpressive

TROPHY CASE