probably assume I don't have agency

Getting rid of "less desirable PoC babies" was the specific goal of noted Eugenicist Margaret Sanger when she started Planned Parenthood so their location in the black neighborhoods is intentional.

Not fun fact, more black babies are aborted each year than are born in the US.

If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and if consciousness entails a first person perspective, then a first person perspective does arise from the simulation. That experience within that perspective will be the same if the emergent phenomenon is the same, which I assume you were positing by allowing the simulation to be sufficiently accurate. Of course this means that the "external" part of the simulation will have to respond to the subroutine running the mind, such that it can then produce "sensory" feedback for the mind in response to the mind's "actions". But in this hypothetical you propose I don't see why that would be impossible.

To conclude, if you accept materialism of the mind, then you must accept that your first person experience could in principle be born from a sufficiently accurate simulation. To use a sci-fi allegory, you could be a program in the Matrix.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, like, of course is the same phenomenon observed, but is not the same phenomenon in the 1 person POV.

Is there not a third option here, to experience both the pleasure of food and the pleasure of its absence?

I've also heard a version of everybody has a different perspective and view like I can't see life in this room from your point of view you can't see it from my point of view and all the pain and suffering and enjoying happiness that we go through only we can experience in that way and God is living through us. time will not seeks to exist until God knows every feeling and every situation that there can be

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn will make you question our whole society and system

But what if all the choices we have arn't either right or wrong they just exist to be used if someone decides too that route. It's like the question of is evil real and is good and kindness real we say certain things are evil but that's just something the majority of pp have come to except as evil there is neither good nor bad theirs just our perception of actions that tells us what's good and bad. Killers think nothing is wrong with their actions and how can that be if evil does exis cuz evil would have self knowledge of it being the wrong thing to do but a lot of cereal killers see no wrong In their actions is it really kindness and good to feed ur dog everyday or is it just a agreed upon that he gives u satisfaction so u give him satisfaction back by feeding him

I don't believe it ppl shouldnt reproduce my point was were the only form of life that thinks on a higher lvl and wants to be noticed I'm throwing ideas out there we could all be hooked up computers talking to each other Wich were made by same said society and so on

Read the book of Ishmael by Daniel Quinn that opened my eyes to a lot

No I never heard of that I'm going to Google it and check it out thanks

The fools will eradicate schizophrenia, and then they’ll experience eugenicists remorse.

Have you read about Pyrrhonism? You might find the ten modes of Aenesidemus relevant to your question.

Marvel is best case scenario if super heros were a thing. Check out The Boys on Amazon. Turns out people + powers are still people with the same ethical chinks.

Would there be a perception of life? Or existence of self perception if people didn't exist. because animals live in the world how it is in humans for some reason have to build it to their way of what they perceive as they're existence and reason for being? Are we just self important assholes who think we're here for something special but really we are no different in our perseption then the bird cuz he builds a nest for his next generation and we do to. But how does the bird differ from us cuz he stops when he's accomplished his needs but humans have a self important complex. And build for impression not preservation.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

If you want to read OP's rant he's spammed it to a bunch of other subs so just check his posting history. Also, it's not worth bothering, this reads like yet another Reddit fifteen year old who just read The God Delusion and thinks he's discovered something profound.

>If we lived in a simulated universe, we would not be conscious right? Like, if we have a code that could perfectly simulate a human mind into a game, such that this simulated mind really really looks like to us to have conscious, this would be nothing more than a illusion because is just this, a simulation, a program extremely complex created by us.

I think this is wrong. Let's assume that we don't have souls, that instead the mind arises solely from the material world, i.e. our brain. Then the mind, including consciousness, is an emergent phenomenon, which is currently generated materially. But you posit a hypothetical in which the same phenomenon could be generated using programmed software and hardware to run it on. But the emergent phenomenon is the same (because you posit it is), and so consciousness still emerges.

Somewhat barely exploring philosophy with values I find to help. If anyone can leave any book or reading recommendations on optimistic nihilism and Absurdism?

Interesting to see the Greek “Logos” in the definition.

I’m curious how similar this is to the conception of the Dao.

I don't think so. The actual goal is to be philosophical zombie:

-Reverend Nagasena, what is the difference between the lustful man and the man free from lusts?

• My King, the man free of lusts experiences the taste only of the food. The lustful man experiences both the taste and the pleasure of the food.

Your entire description got removed.

1. Philosophy is roughly speaking, lobe for wisdom. Since I am not a theologian, I don't know about Christianity.
2. You still haven't formed an argument against their morality.

It is better to read SEP and Christian Theology rather than ask non-academics these questions.

Did you even read the article? Of course Christianity promotes violence. Christian parents push their gay children out into the streets to die of homelessness. Even worse a Muslim parent will just kill you for coming out as atheist or if you decide to not marry who they have in mind as a woman. Therefore, we must prosecute leaders of religions to protect society as a whole because people who practice Abrahamic religions promote this form of violence even though they may not appear to do so directly. Do not be fooled by "peace loving" Christians or Muslisms. There is no possibility of peace when they will try to force their views on you violently once they become the majority. This is also the case in European countries where Muslims kill non Muslims to instill fear in non-muslims as the Muslims slowly become the majority in various regions in Europe. As a result, being a non-muslim becomes dangerous because they will kill you for it.

1. Religions don't do anything, people do.
2. Do all Christians commit violence? I don't think so.
3. Why do you think their moral views are wrong? Have you successfully argued against them?

Why not? This is a serious discussion about morality because Abrahamic religions use violence to impose what they think is supposedly moral even though its total bullshit. I think that they should be prosecuted just for their very existence because they threaten my existence as someone who is a gay atheist. We simply cannot coexist.