Humans don’t have the total self reference you talk about on 313. A computer can’t have perfect record of every process since each attempt to record or log a process must be itself recorded and logged by additional processes, ad infinitum. Humans are not aware of all our processes, down to each cell, as such a thing would be computationally impossible. However, our actual level of awareness is no more impossible than a pc showing you a task manager. Our current level of self reference doesn’t meet this requirement for undecidablility.

You already raised the correct objection to infinite state spaces. I think I can illustrate it with an analogy. Saying “Humans have infinite state spaces because we have an impression left by even very large numbers,” is like saying, “This computer has infinitely more storage space than you think. (hits with hammer) Look, it has stored the imprint of this hammer.” You’re confusing a psychological response to incomprehensible numbers with actual storage of said numbers. Also, even if you were right about humans storing a unique impression of everything they’ve ever experienced and that being equivalent to state space. That’s still nowhere close to the infinity you need to make statements about Laplace’s demon.

And you’re probably wrong about different numbers leaving different impressions. I’d bet money that if we gave you a 3000 digit number your “impression” would be the same (no measurable difference) no matter what the 347th digit is.

A trillion molecules with a trillion different possible combinations is a large number. It is not an infinite number. To Laplace’s demon, this might as well be 8 total combinations. We also have reason to believe that the total number of imaginary objects or scenarios might be similarly finite, if incomprehensibly large. I expect we have a finite list of objects and scenarios we’re determined to imagine.

I don’t understand why you think generating an unsolvable problem means that the being who generated it has an unsolvable will. Stating a paradox doesn’t mean you incorporate a paradox in your own thought process nor does it mean you have violated the genetic and environmental causes which determine your choices and thoughts.

Pretty indefensible take. Life advice is consistent and essential for children. He offers no specific consequentialist net benefit to increased self actualization and ignores the harm caused by a generation of children who aren’t warned about the risks of pregnancy and drug addiction.

Also the quote disparaging providing evidence backed advice specifically felt strange: “Offering reasons, arguments or evidence as if one is in a privileged position with respect to what the other person’s experience would be like for them disrespects their moral right to revelatory autonomy.” Surely the evidence supporting your advice should make it more justified. It’s more reasonable and moral to advise someone to avoid Xanax addiction than it is to control their career path precisely because of the evidence. It’s just so interesting that he’s against advice, but seems especially against what doctors and psychologists would call “good advice.”

Human as an adjective refers to of or belonging to the genus homo. Which is generally applied to anything containing human dna. But you kind of ignored the bit about wether something is human being irrelevant to moral philosophy. Neither is wether things are alive. Although sperm is arguably alive anyway. You need to ground this in some kind of relevant consequence. What harm is done in abortion that isn’t done with abstinence?

No, biologists would classify both as human. Both are “of or belong to the genus homo”. Human sperm, fertilized human embryos, and human feces are all considered human in a sense. But that also isn’t relevant in any moral framework. What you’re probably trying to say is that a fetus is a “person”. Which would be an entity deserving of a right to life. That’s not a biology question and not the easiest thing to justify.

You say this like unmolested is a common or coherent term in moral philosophy. What is the difference in the consequences between ending the potential before vs after fertilization? If you prefer to articulate it in terms of virtue ethics or deontological reasoning, that’s fine, but don’t just tell me the obvious empirical difference between two objects and pretend you’ve made a point about their value.

Also this has nothing to do with politics. In English “potential” has nothing to do with the level of molestation required to achieve said potential. You wouldn’t say a person can only have potential in something if they could achieve it without having to practice. Nor would you say that a business venture lacks potential because it requires adaptability.

What is the salient ethical difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting pregnancy?

Either way pro life activists should stop using the phrase “potential person” (or “potential life”) to mean specifically a fetus. Because sperm and eggs would be potential persons by definition. He’s not a moron for knowing the correct definition of “potential”.

I don’t believe you can square the use of parasite with a concern for that entity’s agency. It’s like trying to trust a person who says, “I don’t hate Jews because of their genetics; I call them rats because of the choices they’ve made.” Even if I grant that you don’t condemn people for being unproductive through no fault of their own, this parasite rhetoric still evokes imagery of hate toward desperate victims (like drug addicts and the mentally ill). It’s not like the people you’re calling parasites are benefiting from their behavior. They need rehabilitation and community more than condemnation.

The article describes a dichotomy between those who are productive and parasites. If you think this author believes children with cancer and the disabled are productive, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion since the article seemed to only describe productivity in terms of being paid or maintaining self sufficiency. Why do you think this author would say a kid with a mortal case of cancer isn’t a parasite?

Stopped reading after the first use of parasite. Any philosophy which dehumanizes the disabled (and anyone else not productive under capitalism) doesn’t have much productive to say about morality. You look like a monster when you describe everyone from lovable puppies to children dying of cancer as parasites. There’s more to morality than greed.

The notion that caring about suffering and bliss could ever be silly is silly. Imagine a person who doesn’t believe that people are valuable outside of their ability to experience bliss/suffering. Then, imagine trying to convince that person that it’s silly to care if they get tortured and abused or that it doesn’t make sense for them to want what makes them happy. There has never been and will never be a conscious entity that doesn’t care about happiness or suffering.

It’s unnecessary to eat the way many people do. The money wasted on fine dining, alcohol and sweets can save plenty of lives. People don’t like to acknowledge that they’ve probably let a few people die in order to live a life of relative luxury.

And while his sibling example is reductionist, it’s easy to understand most people don’t want to dedicate months or years of their life to try and rehabilitate their addicted family member. And those people seek solace in the form of thinking that there was nothing they could do.

Changing our economic system is obviously possible. We can become more authoritarian and less capitalistic. But we have never been able to create a non oppressive economic system. Creating such a system through democracy without having your movement co-opted by dictators may very well be unrealistic.

You’re making a strong case for the argument that people shouldn’t be compelled to do things they provably cannot do. But nobody disagrees with that. Proving that freedom is in any sense meaningful or valuable is where you fall short. You don’t provide a way to compare freedom with utility or a reason why freedom would ever be more valuable than flourishing.

As far as I’m concerned the lack of free will makes freedom an illusory goal. The illusion of freedom is a path to well being, and any code of conduct should probably only ask for conduct that’s possible. But our code of conduct should be based entirely on utility.