ShalmaneserIII t1_j685s45 wrote

Yes, yes, those are things. But why do they matter to you at all?

And see, you're making meaning- humans are stupid. There's your meaning for you. Do you think a cat would agree, or a rock?


ShalmaneserIII t1_j67xfdy wrote

Then what are people doing when they consider there to be a point to things- the things they do and the things all people do?

It's not something intrinsic in the world, it's a creation of humans.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j67ri91 wrote

Okay, so why are others important to you, such that you'd want to do so?

Basically, why is this something you would choose to do, rather than do something else instead?

Or, what does the act of loving mean? Why does it matter?


ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r086c wrote

Arguably, you're not wrong, if by "respect" you mean how someone is treated.

If you expect to engage in transactional relationships with people to further your own ends, will obey explicitly agreed-upon rules but have no implicit ones, and have no particular concerns for the persons' wellbeing beyond those, you will treat humans and corporations the same.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j57qkr5 wrote

It would have required a lot of political upheaval, though- when the legitimacy of the government is based on the Emperor being divine, Christianity throws a wrench into things.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j4xqonx wrote

I worked at a hospital that did that. I thought there needed to be symmetry- Brahms' Lullaby for a birth, Chopin's Funeral March for a death. You could tell how the night was going that way.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j3wevir wrote

Some of the Platonic forms only make sense when you consider that their language didn't really consider adjectives to be a thing.

"Hot" or "Large" or "Red" were considered something loke incomplete nouns that required other nouns to finish them. "Hot sand", "Large tree", etc.

Only then does it make sense to talk of forms of "The hot" or "The large"or, "The good"

If their language treated adjectives as we do, they may not have started to consider "The Good" a thing.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j3hhj98 wrote

> Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes,

Possibly not, considering what we know of how neurotransmitter-increasing medications work. They don't cause an end to depression immediately after raising neurotransmitter levels. And, ironically, suicide risk goes up shortly after starting the meds.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j3hereu wrote

> But i don't think people can make perfect assessments of their own happiness even with their qualia.

That is, though, about as good as it's going to get.

Presumably few would say they're unhappy when they're somehow secretly happy. Some more might say they're happy out of a belief they're supposed to be happy. Despite that, the person describing their own qualia has to be better than anyone else at knowing whether that assessment is right or not.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j3h6m0w wrote

And yet I guarantee you that chefs and condiment manufacturers alike do have ideas on how to make a good mustard.

We have one standard for measuring happiness- asking people if they're happy. It's essentially the same one we have for assessing pain. At that point, it's just a matter of figuring out what makes people, when able to freely say, say they're happy more than not.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j2cdsvu wrote

My argument is that a world without productivity is less pleasant than one with it. Do you like air conditioning? Running water for nice hot showers even in midwinter? Fresh veggies in January?

Basically, what you think of as pleasant- apparently being time to lounge around with your friends- is not what I think of as pleasant.


ShalmaneserIII t1_j2cdbcx wrote

Hunting buffalo. Hunter-gatherer levels of productivity are about what people would do if they can't accumulate capital for themselves or if they're not coerced by external threat.