The purpose of all life

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mowk » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:02 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Mowk wrote:and gracefully humble. And perhaps humility is over rated.


Humility is the by-product of wisdom.

I know in a zero sum world that if I win, I lose.

The arrogance of the unwise thinking they are winners.


For my own cognition could you explain anything you have won or lost, and what was really won or lost? Big pictures.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:26 am

The non zero sum desirability and the lack of consent violation are the only measures of life and goodness.

You can judge me in those criteria.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mowk » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:37 am

Ecmandu wrote:The non zero sum desirability and the lack of consent violation are the only measures of life and goodness.

You can judge me in those criteria.


How?

You speak of winning and losing. And I have asked what you have won and lost. I am simply attempting to sum things up.
Last edited by Mowk on Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:47 am

Mowk wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The non zero sum desirability and the lack of consent violation are the only measures of life and goodness.

You can judge me in those criteria.


It is difficult for me to even count the number of references you have made to a belief in either a zero sum or non-zero sum what ever.

What is zero? And if I can't grasp zero as a some "thing" I'm not going to be able to apply it in a summary property causally, whether zero is the sum or not. Does nothing do something to an equation?
Is it a reference to a postulated law of physics with which I am unfamiliar, or one that is quite common?


Common. Game theory, not physics.

It means that if someone wins another her loses.

+1 + -1 = 0

Hence the term "zero sum"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mowk » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:54 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Mowk wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The non zero sum desirability and the lack of consent violation are the only measures of life and goodness.

You can judge me in those criteria.


It is difficult for me to even count the number of references you have made to a belief in either a zero sum or non-zero sum what ever.

What is zero? And if I can't grasp zero as a some "thing" I'm not going to be able to apply it in a summary property causally, whether zero is the sum or not. Does nothing do something to an equation?
Is it a reference to a postulated law of physics with which I am unfamiliar, or one that is quite common?


Common. Game theory, not physics.

It means that if someone wins another her loses.

+1 + -1 = 0

Hence the term "zero sum"


How do you determine the + or -? Perhaps notions of winning and loosing aren't Boolean values. Certainly at face value... but what about beneath that? Can you factor in all the variables?
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:25 am

If someone wins over mutually exclusive desires, it's considered zero sum. If someone wins of the same mutual desire, it is also considered zero sum.

In game theory, there are only 3 possible outcomes ...

Win/win
Win/lose
Lose/lose

Win/win is the entire book of all struggles of ethics and morality; it's billions of times more powerful than the golden rule.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mowk » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:52 am

Ecmandu wrote:If someone wins over mutually exclusive desires, it's considered zero sum. If someone wins of the same mutual desire, it is also considered zero sum.

In game theory, there are only 3 possible outcomes ...

Win/win
Win/lose
Lose/lose

Win/win is the entire book of all struggles of ethics and morality; it's billions of times more powerful than the golden rule.


In game theory? How does that apply? Is >this< a game?

I asked how a win or a loss is determined? In >this< Big Picture.

So you present a very simplified diorama of the win/lose picture.

I would counter Entity A and Entity B argue over Resource R. Whether A or B wins, doesn't require resource R to by applied positively or negatively. How do you factor in what a plus on one side and a minus on the other side constitutes? You have simplified an equation that involves so many cultural factors, resources, human capacity into a boolean system of on's and offs, and only three possible combinations.

I can imagine how it might be done but were Pen and Teller fouled?

Which of the three versions would you wish to attach me to?

I try not to judge you, But your ideas are fair game.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:41 pm

Mowk wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:If someone wins over mutually exclusive desires, it's considered zero sum. If someone wins of the same mutual desire, it is also considered zero sum.

In game theory, there are only 3 possible outcomes ...

Win/win
Win/lose
Lose/lose

Win/win is the entire book of all struggles of ethics and morality; it's billions of times more powerful than the golden rule.


In game theory? How does that apply? Is >this< a game?

I asked how a win or a loss is determined? In >this< Big Picture.

So you present a very simplified diorama of the win/lose picture.

I would counter Entity A and Entity B argue over Resource R. Whether A or B wins, doesn't require resource R to by applied positively or negatively. How do you factor in what a plus on one side and a minus on the other side constitutes? You have simplified an equation that involves so many cultural factors, resources, human capacity into a boolean system of on's and offs, and only three possible combinations.

I can imagine how it might be done but were Pen and Teller fouled?

Which of the three versions would you wish to attach me to?

I try not to judge you, But your ideas are fair game.


The key to non zero sum work is the translation of desirable states of being.

If you live in a house that's highly coveted, with a family, translating desirable states would allow billions if not an infinite number of people to live in the same house; it is to resolve the issue of desirable scarcity, whether it be family born into, friends, lovers etc ...

It is this translating of desirable states that is the only thing the drives the purpose engine, for people to take or leave as they will.

When consent is violated against consent, there's simply glancing into an infinite future of consent violation, which for every being, is a loss/loss scenario. This is the enemy of all life.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mowk » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:09 am

Simple. When both sides lose, you don't think it's good for anyone.

But you still haven't defined how a plus or minus is determined to factor the equation. Are we just going to wait around to let evolution figure it out?

You've got an idea. It's your life... run with it. But there is a corner over there that you seem to ignore that has my curiosity.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:38 pm

Mowk wrote:Simple. When both sides lose, you don't think it's good for anyone.

But you still haven't defined how a plus or minus is determined to factor the equation. Are we just going to wait around to let evolution figure it out?

You've got an idea. It's your life... run with it. But there is a corner over there that you seem to ignore that has my curiosity.


Plus or minus (sorry I thought it was clear) is whether ones personal consent is violated against their consent. That's different for each individual to judge for themselves.

There are mutually exclusive consents.

The broadest one is that some people's consent is violated if anyone's consent is violated, with others, their consent is violated unless they can violate the consent of others.

The latter group is what we call "evil"

In order to solve this equation, the latter group needs to be sent to a reality where they actually believe that they're violating consent, but actually aren't, they are kept ignorant.

The former group will desire to know that they're in a reality that cannot violate theirs or anyone else's consent, they will desire to not be ignorant.

Think of consent also as each individuals desire fulfillment, most of ours are vastly different from each other.

Non zero sum work is to solve all of this.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life (the political war here)

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:14 am

http://spdrdng.com/posts/conscious-vs-s ... processing

The subconscious mind doesn't lie.

The conscious one constantly does.

Like pulling teeth, some people who process the world with their subconscious in their conscious mind, when they explain the obvious ... people hate themselves, and so hates and censors the person who points it out as projection.

Logic is logic.

When logic comes, never get defensive about logic.

simply understand and change behavior -accept the consequence of being wrong.

An example of this is iambiguous, who to this day, still hasn't accepted that all rational beings don't want their consent violated against their consent, and his postings for the years have been usurped - he refuses to adapt even though he KNOWS he lost the debate there. And it goes on ...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mowk » Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:01 am

But people writing about the conscious mind do.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:49 am

I've met plenty of rational beings that want their consent violated against their consent.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25848
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:36 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:I've met plenty of rational beings that want their consent violated against their consent.


That's not possible. Consent violation by definition is what a person doesn't want.

You know like when someone jumps out and says "boo" and you jump a bit, if it's a friend you'll probably laugh about it. That's a consent violation, almost everyone wants that. But everyone also wants these experiences on their own terms, thus, they don't want their consent violated against their consent. To suggest that you know the reverse of people is counter definitional and also shows you don't have either much imagination and that you've lived an easy life.

I am quite sure the "universe" can make anyone "tapout" in about an hour. Do yourself a favor and stop taunting it, as you are want to do.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:56 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:I've met plenty of rational beings that want their consent violated against their consent.


That's not possible. Consent violation by definition is what a person doesn't want.

You know like when someone jumps out and says "boo" and you jump a bit, if it's a friend you'll probably laugh about it. That's a consent violation, almost everyone wants that. But everyone also wants these experiences on their own terms, thus, they don't want their consent violated against their consent. To suggest that you know the reverse of people is counter definitional and also shows you don't have either much imagination and that you've lived an easy life.

I am quite sure the "universe" can make anyone "tapout" in about an hour. Do yourself a favor and stop taunting it, as you are want to do.



You literally just said that consent violation is by definition something that a person doesn't want, then you said that almost everyone wants it.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25848
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:49 am

People like suprizes in their life (not all people). Suprpzes are by definition, consent violations.

When it moves into the territory of consent violations against their consent, as I already explained and you ignored, that leaves a wide open field to send people to hell forever.

You're not even responding to the nuance of my post, or the reason why I say "consent violating against consent". You're replying to half the content.

Every being wants consent violations on their own terms!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby barbarianhorde » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:04 pm

Being born is a consent violation. Except that is not what consent means. But let's have it your way for a moment. Some dude in India is now suing his parents for having him be born without his consent.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby promethean75 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:05 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Some dude in India is now suing his parents for having him be born without his consent.


[scene: monday morning. small claims court in new delhi]

judge: this court is now in session. let the plantiff step forward and state his complaint.

jamal: thank you, your honor. i am suing my parents because they did not ask me if i wanted to be born.

judge: is this true?

father: it is true, your honor. but it isn't as if we could have asked him. i mean he wasn't born yet, you know?

judge: are you aware, jamal, that in not being able to ask not to be born, you are not bound by contract to be asked if you want to be born?

jamal: onus probandi, you're honor.

[judge waves over a hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt who brings him an enormous book. they consult over the book as the hot indian woman flips through the pages, finally pointing out paragraph nine subsection a.3 in chapter four]

judge: are you aware that the burden of proof lies on you to show that jamal did not not want to be born?

father: rationabile dubium, your honor.

[judge waves over the hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt who brings him the enormous book again. they consult over the book as the hot indian woman flips through the pages, finally pointing out paragraph six subsection b.1 in chapter seven]

judge: are you aware that your father had reasonable doubt to believe that you wouldn't want to be born, jamal?

jamal: argumentum ad populum, your honor.

[judge waves over the hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt who brings him the enormous book again. they consult over the book as the hot indian woman flips through the pages, finally pointing out paragraph two subsection c.6 in chapter eleven. hot indian woman in a sharp navy blue skirt decides to sit down beside the bench this time rather than walk back to the attorney's chamber. she crosses her legs and puts the book on her lap]

judge: are you aware that just because most people are happy they exist and are glad they were born, it doesn't necessarily mean jamal should be happy and glad to be born, too? i will allow you some time to make your considerations, and call a brief intermission for the court.

[quiet chatter fills the court room as the judge adjusts his turban, steps down from the bench, and heads for the coke machine in the lobby]
promethean75
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Meno_ » Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:31 pm

Court back in session.
The hot chick again brings back the enormous book, as the attorney for the Plaintiff refers to another subsection and reads aloud:

It is the necessary requirement of the law that all prosecutors and Judges acquire a PHD in the history of philosophy to know the contractual impression that the categorical imperative plays on subsequent opinions.

Therefore judgement for the defense in addition to punitive damages for all violations of idea paternae.


Whereupon slyly, the hot chick uncrosses her legs , revealing more thigh than she should have, to everyone's dismay and or satisfaction
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:23 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Being born is a consent violation. Except that is not what consent means. But let's have it your way for a moment. Some dude in India is now suing his parents for having him be born without his consent.


I've already addressed this on these boards.

Saying being born is a consent violation is like saying that the leading cause of death is birth.

Birth is also the leading cause of life.

Birth is also the leading cause of consent.

However, since we all know that many people never wanted to be born and eventually commit suicide, we could make the birth absolutely consensual by having a painless plan for suicide provided for each birth, suicide clinics that are all over earth.

THAT you CAN sue for!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Meno_ » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:02 am

Except pro lifers would never settle for that in a Democratic society.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4091
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:43 am

Meno_ wrote:Except pro lifers would never settle for that in a Democratic society.


We're not talking about pro lifers here, we're talking about pro slavery people here.

My stance on abortion is very straight forward though:

If the mother wants to be a hands on mother and decides that she can't do that the way she wants in context, she has every right to abort a child.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:41 am

Ecmandu, you can't say that everyone wants their consent violated, and that no one wants their consent violated and both of those things be true.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25848
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:52 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:Ecmandu, you can't say that everyone wants their consent violated, and that no one wants their consent violated and both of those things be true.


That's not what I said, and again, you know it.

What I said is that almost everyone wants their consent violated, but that nobody wants their consent violated against their consent, everybody wants consent violations on their own terms, there is no exception to that.

Think in terms of surprise birthday parties to understand how I'm categorizing this. Lots really love them, lots really hate them. If you put someone in a reality where surprise birthday parties are impossible, you'll be violating their consent by not having a consent violation like this in their reality.

It's not as simple as stating nobody wants their consent violated -- an additional step needs to be clarified there, to avoid what every being individually and collectively seeks to avoid, having their consent violated without ever being ultimately on their own terms.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7569
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The purpose of all life

Postby Artimas » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:37 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:Ecmandu, you can't say that everyone wants their consent violated, and that no one wants their consent violated and both of those things be true.


That's not what I said, and again, you know it.

What I said is that almost everyone wants their consent violated, but that nobody wants their consent violated against their consent, everybody wants consent violations on their own terms, there is no exception to that.

Think in terms of surprise birthday parties to understand how I'm categorizing this. Lots really love them, lots really hate them. If you put someone in a reality where surprise birthday parties are impossible, you'll be violating their consent by not having a consent violation like this in their reality.

It's not as simple as stating nobody wants their consent violated -- an additional step needs to be clarified there, to avoid what every being individually and collectively seeks to avoid, having their consent violated without ever being ultimately on their own terms.


Sounds like your talking about love and being self aware ultimately. To see the bigger picture. Violating consent or another's 'will' is to be tyrannical, by asserting yours over theirs. If this is what you are meaning then I can't say I disagree. Live happy but in the least harmful way possible.

Existence is agony, so the purpose of existence is to lessen the agony of which you and others endure, by choosing love. There are only two paths after existence, love or fear.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]