• oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

    If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of that that’s the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn’t be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it’s reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

      this can’t be true. it’s self-contradictory.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.

              • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you’re right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there’s no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).

                  • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    That seems to bother you. Let’s taboo the word. When I say “someone”, “anyone”, “person”, etc, I’m referring to a sentient being, a subject of experience, an experiencer, one who is experiencing. Now you can interpret what I’m saying better, do you disagree with the actual points I’m making?

              • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Hell even to get past solipsism you have to subjectively assume to that your mind and senses accurately reflect the world at least a little bit, otherwise gathering any accurate data or reasoning about that data productively would not be possible