2 ms·

I am not compelled by this. To the best of my ability to understand the world in which I find myself, it seems unfortunately to be the case that there are no hu

I am not compelled by this. To the best of my ability to understand the world in which I find myself, it seems unfortunately to be the case that there are no human beings as such, no persons, no moral agents. What I see around me are assemblages of interacting quantum fields which share no fundamental nature with one another except that they happen to be arranged in similar (but not remotely identical or fundamentally related) shapes. Given that there are no human beings there cannot be a single human nature and thus I can say nothing about whether a person's behavior is good or bad in reference to such. I admit this is a daunting state of affairs which is not pleasant to contemplate, but I don't adopt beliefs on the basis of what is pleasant or unpleasant or easy or not easy. I adopt them, as far as I have the agency to do so, on the basis of what seems plausible and, given how I understand the universe, your account seems highly implausible.

prewett 2y ago
And yet, you also have the experience of existing and the experience of thinking and the experience of making decisions. I think this is evidence that your analysis is missing something. (And before you just dismiss this as wrong, note that an incorrect model generally fails at the edges, so these quiet discrepancies are important hints.) If you focus on the components, how can you see the higher-order whole? If you can only see cells, it is hard to perceive the body. If you can only see the assembly code it is hard to grok the algorithm, let alone the purpose for which the algorithm is used. On the other hand, if you insist that there are no human beings, you should adopt the values/morals of Buddhism, since your arguments of non-existence are very similar to Buddhist arguments.
- nathan_compton 2y ago
  I don't really see any reason to adopt values or morals of any kind.

prewett 2y ago

And yet, you also have the experience of existing and the experience of thinking and the experience of making decisions. I think this is evidence that your analysis is missing something. (And before you just dismiss this as wrong, note that an incorrect model generally fails at the edges, so these quiet discrepancies are important hints.) If you focus on the components, how can you see the higher-order whole? If you can only see cells, it is hard to perceive the body. If you can only see the assembly code it is hard to grok the algorithm, let alone the purpose for which the algorithm is used. On the other hand, if you insist that there are no human beings, you should adopt the values/morals of Buddhism, since your arguments of non-existence are very similar to Buddhist arguments.

nathan_compton 2y ago
I don't really see any reason to adopt values or morals of any kind.