• @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

    • @oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        11 year ago

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

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

                • 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

                • 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).