1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.SKEPTIC

  • Re: Existence - not "better" than never existing

    From x@21:1/5 to John on Tue Apr 22 15:33:04 2025
    XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian

    On 4/15/25 05:22, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:55:54 -0700
    Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:12:08 +0100, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
    <[email protected]>:

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700
    Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
    in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
    <[email protected]>:

    On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:
    Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better than never
    existing.  It can't be, because no such comparison can be made.  Nor can
    existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.

    Correct.

    Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
    and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.

    In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one necessarily
    is talking about two different states of welfare or well-being for the entity.
    But an entity must exist in order to have a welfare state of well-being.  Thus,
    the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the perspective of the
    entity, cannot be made.  It is absurd.

    Also correct.

    I think "David" no longer posts to Usenet.

    It's been 14 years since this "discussion"

    "David"? I only see Ron and T. Howard.

    He was a constant poster back then, with this very bee (about existence) in his bonnet, Vegetarians were denying animals the right to be born and experience life before being eaten.

    That aside, I didn't notice the age; thanks for the
    heads-up.

    OK.

    Yea I did not notice this thread was that old either.

    I found it in alt.philosophy.

    In general, I think of 'minds' as something different
    from 'brains'. In other words 'brains' are like 'hardware'
    in computers and 'minds' are like 'software'. I also think
    it is possible for them to be different on that basis.

    It is hard to say what is 'relevant'. I have clipped some
    of the groups from this response.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)