{"items": [{"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492478914120735", "anchor": "fb-492478914120735", "service": "fb", "text": "Survival.

Brains make survival more likely, because you can figure out what makes you survive, and you can sense when those conditions obtain. If you look closely at what makes a brain \"happy\", it is usually the survival of itself AND its progeny.

A friend described doing a 100 mph deck walk during an extreme tourist weekend on Mount Washington in winter. She couldn't walk, but crawled to the railing and stared out into the black howling abyss -- the perfect nihilistic experience where survival is pretty questionable. That's Hell.

Then there is the south sea island where both survival and reproduction come easily. That is Heaven.

Heaven and Hell, right here on Earth. And the brain tells you which one you'd prefer.", "timestamp": "1360427944"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1360428177"}, {"author": "Brice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492487260786567", "anchor": "fb-492487260786567", "service": "fb", "text": "are there any neural structures that dont matter ?", "timestamp": "1360429838"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1360443778730", "service": "gp", "text": "I'd say the simplest neural structure that matters may be pretty simple. I just don't think I'm a believer in maximizing total utility like you. ", "timestamp": 1360443778}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492560680779225", "anchor": "fb-492560680779225", "service": "fb", "text": "@Walker: evolution is a good explanation for why we like the things we like, but it's not a good basis for morality.", "timestamp": "1360447102"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492561140779179", "anchor": "fb-492561140779179", "service": "fb", "text": "@Justin: \"what is the significance of pain or pleasure if there's no consciousness to experience it?\"

Pretty much, yes. I think Happy Neuron Farm isn't worth creating because raw joy/suffering doesn't matter.", "timestamp": "1360447169"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492561724112454", "anchor": "fb-492561724112454", "service": "fb", "text": "@Brice: \"are there any neural structures that dont matter?\"

Are you saying all neurons matter, even isolated ones?

What about other cells that aren't neurons? Do they matter? Do cells in trees matter? Do rocks matter?", "timestamp": "1360447290"}, {"author": "Brice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492573180777975", "anchor": "fb-492573180777975", "service": "fb", "text": "what matters is whatever's active under your scope of considerations.

in the first paragraph you are putting joy as an ultimate goal, or at least as the reference scale.
HNF would be the greatest achievement on that evaluation basis, but it would be pointless to our life wouldnt it ?
if you enlarge that scope to living beings then your reference scale becomes life.

such is the scope of your second paragraph.
joy and suffering are driving forces of life.
they dont matter as such, whereas diversity, reliance and balance do.

would you want to shift that scope towards human consciousness,
then you need to agree on the goal of human life.
what should our driving forces be aimed at ?
i believe greater understanding is part of the answer.
HNF could be an inspiring project as much as it could be a perversion.", "timestamp": "1360450085"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492586064110020", "anchor": "fb-492586064110020", "service": "fb", "text": "Disagree. Drill into morality, and you will find factors suitable for enhancing human gene pool survival.", "timestamp": "1360453378"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492587407443219", "anchor": "fb-492587407443219", "service": "fb", "text": "@Walker: \"Drill into morality, and you will find factors suitable for enhancing human gene pool survival\"

A restaurant worker at a retirement center starts secretly poisoning people. Immoral, but probably slightly positive on human gene pool survival.", "timestamp": "1360453778"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492588630776430", "anchor": "fb-492588630776430", "service": "fb", "text": "@Brice: \"HNF would be the greatest achievement on that evaluation basis, but it would be pointless to our life wouldnt it?\"

That's the disagreement. Some people (not me, but people I've talked to recently) think that's the right evaluation basis to use in general and so HNF would be very important, morally.", "timestamp": "1360454103"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=492590304109596", "anchor": "fb-492590304109596", "service": "fb", "text": "Evolution is a percentage bet. Poisoning old folks is clearly immoral. But it is an isolated perturbed instance (low percentage), and when extrapolated to the general population, becomes a lousy behavior for gene pool survival. Letting people live is QED good gene pool behavior. And, yes, some people leaving would leave the world a better place. But in general (high percentage), killing people is bad for gene pool survival and is immoral. You can find lots of very specific examples which are, by their very specificity, irrelevant. Big picture here.", "timestamp": "1360454617"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1360463699140", "service": "gp", "text": "Jeff-- given that you say \"Probably not that many\", I'm surprised you don't count non-human animals in your utility computations. ", "timestamp": 1360463699}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1360464035455", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n\u00a0\"I'm surprised you don't count non-human animals\"\n
\n
\nBecause I don't think raw joy/suffering is what matters. (And I don't think Happy Neuron Farm is creating something of value.)", "timestamp": 1360464035}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1360464358789", "service": "gp", "text": "Ah, got it. ", "timestamp": 1360464358}, {"author": "Brice", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=493346537367306", "anchor": "fb-493346537367306", "service": "fb", "text": "they do not encompass all things to consider. some sort of a childish tantrum.", "timestamp": "1360616887"}, {"author": "Dustin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=494319887269971", "anchor": "fb-494319887269971", "service": "fb", "text": "This is fantastic.", "timestamp": "1360819165"}, {"author": "Gordon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=496668063701820", "anchor": "fb-496668063701820", "service": "fb", "text": "\"Is building Happy Neuron Farm one of the best things we could do?\"

Even if they do experience pleasure all the time, so what? It's not all like sentient beings are networked in some way where everyone's combined pleasure is somehow important.

Sure, its pleasure is good for whoever is experiencing it (in this case some cluster of neurons), but when you merely create these things, is it really a good thing? Surely your time and resources are much better spent improving the well-being of sentients who currently exist.

I just don't see the good in bringing sentients into existence, putting time into making sure their well-being is good (i.e. they're happy or they experience pleasure), because you could've simply not brought it/them into existence and instead put time into helping other sentients who already exist. When you choose to do one thing, you are also choosing not to do something else. It seems that I view the interests of those who already exist to be more important than the interests of those who don't currently exist and whose existence can be avoided. (I wish I could articulate my thoughts better. That last sentence probably didn't make much sense.)

Maybe I'm just a negative utilitarian, because I don't see Happy Neuron Farms as a good thing even though it means increased total pleasure, while I see Sad Neuron Farms as being extremely bad. Since I think SNFs are extremely bad, you'd think I would view HNFs to be extremely good, but I don't.

I suppose my main objection is: while there are animals (including humans) who are alive today whose well-being is compromised and could be improved, how can we justify spending our time and resources creating other sentients (who wouldn't exist if it weren't for us) just so they can experience pleasure? Since they wouldn't have existed if it weren't for us intentionally creating them, what's the point?

Thoughts?", "timestamp": "1361271402"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=496691910366102", "anchor": "fb-496691910366102", "service": "fb", "text": "@ Gordon: Thank you. Not in the least bit inarticulate.", "timestamp": "1361278123"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=496737117028248", "anchor": "fb-496737117028248", "service": "fb", "text": "@Gordon: \"It's not all like sentient beings are networked in some way where everyone's combined pleasure is somehow important\"

Then why is SNF \"extremely bad\"?

\"I view the interests of those who already exist to be more important than the interests of those who don't currently exist and whose existence can be avoided.\"

If there were a drug that parents could consume before conceiving that would prevent some kind of birth defect would it be reasonable to say \"why should we promote parents consuming this drug; the people it is designed to help don't yet exist to have interests\"?", "timestamp": "1361288315"}, {"author": "Gordon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/492472264121400?comment_id=499315206770439", "anchor": "fb-499315206770439", "service": "fb", "text": "I think SNFs are extremely bad because you're bringing into existence sentients who only suffer. It's bad because it's bad for them. It would be better - for them - if they were never created.

As I tried to explain before, I seem to be inconsistent, for I do not consider HNFs to be extremely good. You'd think I should given I consider SNFs to be extremely bad. I think I can explain this a little bit though...

Because happiness is only valuable/good for the being who experiences it, total happiness of all sentient beings combined doesn't matter.

Yes, HNFs would increase the total pleasure to pain ratio, but I don't see why that figure matters, at least while you \"artificially\" increase it by simply bringing more beings into existence who are always happy, as opposed to actually helping those who already exist. However, if you were to increase the total pleasure to pain ratio without a HNF, then that would be good, because it means the well-being of beings who were already alive was improved.

\"If there were a drug that parents could consume before conceiving that would prevent some kind of birth defect would it be reasonable to say \"why should we promote parents consuming this drug; the people it is designed to help don't yet exist to have interests\"?\"

I agree, that would be unreasonable. Their interests should be considered equally if we know they will exist. What I was trying to get at was that we should help beings who currently exist. So instead of investing time and resources into ensuring the welfare of beings whose existence can be avoided, we should use that same time and resources into ensuring the welfare of beings who currently exist. Just to clarify, that doesn't mean I think all medicines that help foetuses/babies should no longer be developed, because there will always foreseeably be new babies, despite making new babies unnecessary (probably, to an extent...).

Without taking into consideration at all economics and the consequences of a diminishing human population, I can't think of any justification for procreating. Self-interest - \"I want to start a family\" - is obviously not a justification. Similarly, I can't justify breeding non-human animals.

Hopefully that makes my thoughts a bit clearer. What are your thoughts? :)", "timestamp": "1361871016"}]}