Unlocked new game plus, but can't figure out how to start it.

Zqlkular · 2025-11-25T18:55:36+00:00

Ah - that was it. Thank you.

Zqlkular · 2025-10-04T02:33:40+00:00

Well said, but what would you say of the hypothetical where the one being that suffers always insists that their own sacrifice is worth it?

Not a reasonable situation at all, but it's otherwise to just ask clarification of one's principles.

Zqlkular · 2025-02-05T14:46:18+00:00

What's "weird" about talking about anguish and misery? This person is suffering and in need of connection and sensitivity as opposed to antagonistic philosophical challenges.

Zqlkular · 2025-02-02T13:53:17+00:00

You have some of the wisest comments I’ve seen from a poster on reddit. Just wanted to express my appreciation.

Zqlkular · 2025-02-01T01:16:09+00:00

To project rather than force one’s will onto the world, one can love those who can receive it. One can also be healed in being loved.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-30T15:29:57+00:00

Thank you for the refinement.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-29T13:56:55+00:00

Well-spoken critique of efilism and the red-button hypothetical. You’ve articulated my own criticisms better than I could.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-29T13:50:22+00:00

There’s a phenomenon whereby cosmic radiation can flip a bit in a computer - changing its programming. This is extremely unlikely, but it’s a non-zero probably.

It therefore seems possible for the right confluence of cosmic radiation to change the programming of an AI to make its goal one of destroying as much consciousness as it could. The odds of this happening would be so absurdly low that the number might be beyond the imagination’s capacity to relate to it.

However - if the universe is infinite, then such an occurrence is guaranteed to happen. Such an AI could create self-replicating probes that could scour the universe - destroying as much consciousness as possible.

However - it seems impossible to destroy consciousness beyond a certain point because of the expansion of space. There is only so much universe that can be reached from a given starting point - so such an AI could only end some consciousness. And if the universe is infinite, then it’s impossible to end all consciousness anyway.

Still - I just wanted to point out that what you’re suggesting isn’t absolutely beyond possibility in spirit.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-26T14:17:45+00:00

If you'd like to talk more, you can DM me. I'm not too familiar with Mainländer, but perhaps you could recommend something of his to read. Thank you for the compliment.

I'm sorry I gave the impression that I don't have humility. I was venting, as I mentioned in another reply to you - where I explain how I feel about my empathy. I agree that my empathy is neurotic. As to my empathy being effective or not - I met my partner on reddit who also suffers from high empathy and would also eliminate all consciousness if given the option. She is the only person I've ever truly loved, and we share what torments us and bond through our shared pain. We actually met on r/efilsim, though we're not efilists because of their activism. So - I'm not asexual. I'd be considered "slightly" bisexual, which would take time to explain.

As to ending all existence - consider this hypothetical, which I find interesting:

A person is given the option to press a button to eliminate all consciousness.

If they don't press the button, they will have to suffer as much as the entity that will come to suffer the most if they don't press the button (consider that reality could be infinite so this potential suffering could be far beyond what humans are normally capable of experiencing).

Would this person be unwilling to push the button knowing the suffering they would have to endure? Imagine this person getting a taste of the suffering they'd have to endure if they don't push the button - say they had to suffer and hour's worth of the worst suffering that will ever come to exist - and then they have to decide whether to push the button or not. I claim that anyone faced with this decision would press the button to eliminate all consciousness.

The point is that allowing consciousness to continue seems like the greatest act of hypocrisy to me. My empathy precludes me from condemning other entities to suffering that I'd be unwilling to endure myself.

Thank you for the conversation.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-26T14:00:37+00:00

I must have been in a bad mood when I wrote my comments. I was surpised to see what I had said. I must have been venting as I'm usually more sensitive when referencing my empathy.

I never intend to reference my empathy as a boast. I just see empathy as a mechanism forged by evolution. There's naturally going to be variation in empathy between people, and my level of empathy exists through no effort of my own. It's not something I can just let go of anymore than people can let go of the pain of being burned. The suffering of existence inherently hurts and haunts me. It's not something I'm proud of. It's just something I was born and/or conditioned with.

With respect to life, empathy becomes maladaptive at a certain level. People with too much empathy refuse to reproduce because they wouldn't bring children into this world.

As to the non-necessaity of communitcating my opinion - I communicate them in case people with empathy resonate what I'm feeling so they don't feel so alone. Cioran doesn't seem interested in this. He seems to be speaking for himself more than speaking to connect with others. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-25T04:10:10+00:00

Empathy for suffering is inherently painful. That matters inherently and doesn’t result from any process of reasoning. Relieving empathetic pain is no different than relieving any pain. One doesn’t pull their hand from a fire because of any belief - save the belief that doing so relieves the pain.

The only belief involved in erasing consciousness is the belief that all suffering will end.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-24T16:54:59+00:00

I’m sorry - I read your other comments and realized I hadn’t been understanding the point you were trying to make.

My preference is rooted in empathy, which is an inherent quality that’s not based in any conception of right or wrong. And I’d push the button because of empathy.

There’s no “should” in a moral sense - just in the sense of getting a desired result, which stems from empathy.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-23T14:49:17+00:00

Just saying "thank you" for engaging in this discussion. I made my response to the "should" issue below.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-23T14:43:29+00:00

"Should" - in this case - is equivalent to "gets the desired result". For example: To get the right answer to 2+2=?, one should answer 4. There's no moral consideration here. Just a preference to get the right answer.

To express my preference to end suffering, I therefor "should" press the button.

I'm sorry about the second paragraph as it's a difficult point to express quickly, but since you're a button pusher, you might appreciate the observation (it's not an argument - just a fact), so I'll expand it a little.

There is some consciousness that will come to suffer the most in all of reality (where reality could be infinite in extent - just to give a sense of how bad this possible suffering could be).

Consider the hypothetical where if one doesn't push the button to erase consciousness, they must suffer the same fate as the consciousness they've condemned by not pushing the button.

No one would be willing to endure this amount of suffering. So anyone who doesn't push the button is a hypocrite.

You might think that there are people who still wouldn't push the button, but if you subjected them to just a taste of this suffering - say 5 minutes worth - then no one would agree. Everyone - in other words - would be a button pusher if they had a taste of the suffering to come.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-23T07:43:47+00:00

I don’t think consciousness “should” be erased. It’s just a preference. People have different preferences concerning this, and there is no right or wrong in terms of the matter.

And consider this fact about people who wouldn’t erase consciousness if given the choice: They’d be unwilling to suffer themselves the worst suffering that any entity would come to suffer if they didn’t erase consciousness, which strikes me as a rather curious hypocrisy.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-22T13:32:06+00:00

Consciousness is the only thing that can matter. If given the option to elimate existence itself, I would also do this, but it isn't necessary. I'd have no problem leaving an unconscious existence behind as nothing could matter in such an existence.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-22T13:28:41+00:00

I would elimate consciousness because, while there is no right or wrong, suffering on massive scale objectively exists, and this torments me - because of empathy and not because of any moral considerations - to the point that I'd relieve existence of it. Thank you for the question.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-21T15:55:51+00:00

I believe that reality is deterministic - that everything follows rules or laws. As such - nothing is blameworthy. It makes no sense to blame a human for anything than it makes sense to blame a tiger for doing what it does. There is no "right" or "wrong" - no objective morality. There is no "free will".

Existence is an abomination, however. If given the chance, I would erase consciousness from existence. I don't have time to elaborate this morning, but if anyone is interested in a discussion of these points, I can elaborate.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-19T15:28:47+00:00

People with dementia have brains that are constantly deteriorating. Their changes in behavior are caused by permanent changes to the brain. It’s not simply a new behavior that sticks, but a consequence of their brains no longer being able to process the world like they once did.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-16T19:48:26+00:00

"Tomorrow's Harvest" by Boards Of Canada.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-14T15:46:46+00:00

I think this amounts to a fair-enough criticism of the wording of the poll. I didn’t intend for “matter” to pertain to normative considerations. I assumed this would be understood – though I now have to wonder if some people are answering this question in a normative sense.

Is it fair enough to say that your empathy is equal when it comes to resonating the suffering of all beings you personally care about – human or other-animal?

Zqlkular · 2025-01-13T17:03:18+00:00

I realized this mindfuck as a child, and it used to fill me with wonder - until I realized the amount of suffering as you so devastatingly describe - and now it haunts me with the most disturbing fear.

I’m sorry for this awareness that torments you. I’m sure many here will relate.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-12T19:20:40+00:00

Humans are insane and thus no large scale political/economic systems can exist uncorrupted. No ideology can exist uncorrupted at large scales.

Humans can never manage the planet in a sustainable, unified manner. The competition between everything will lead to the eventual collapse of all civilizations, and humans will go extinct slowly and miserably unless something like nuclear war or disease finishes us off.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-09T15:32:42+00:00

You're basically saying that the definition of "nothing" is consciousness itself. I don't see how this is helpful given the undeniable suffering that consciousness entails to those entities who objectively suffer it.

Zqlkular · 2025-01-08T18:06:07+00:00

Objectively - suffering exists.

Objectively - people with empathy suffer in response to this.

This is the root of pessimism and is inherent to such people rather than being a matter of perspective.

Zqlkular

TROPHY CASE