Objective Value

This is the establishment of Objective Value. Note that refuting and invalidating Natalism does not absolutely depend on Objective Value. Objective Value provides strong assistance, by forming a constraint for the misconceptions created by nihilism, subjectivism, agnosticism, natalism, and anything else that would keep this case indefinitely hanging open.

## First Clarification and The End of Incoherence

Since EFILism is an objective philosophy that seeks truth and conclusions, we will nail the infinite limbo of knowledge to the floor with a simple recipe:

1. EFILism Objective Value = A Materialist Secularist Logically-defined Substrate-anchored Closed-concept Explicanda & Explicans, which has reached the conclusions needed to close this case
2. Moral / Ethical Subjectivism = An Anti-realist Open-ended Analysanda, which has not reached the conclusions needed to close this case. And even if the truth were on nihilism or subjectivism's side, it still does not *vindicate* Natalism or DNA evolution, which means they are fundamentally irrelevant to making a case for pro-natalism. Regardless and as a bonus, we're having this argument too:

## **Objective Value - Simple**

### **Epistemology**

It is possible to have false purpose, false belief, false understanding, false information, false ideas, false concepts, and so on. But there is no such thing as "false sensation" or "false experience".

### **Phenomenology**

That is because, as far as Epistemology, those types of consciousness that derive or posit information as "purpose, belief, understanding, ideas, concepts" are a payload and claim about truths and falsehoods which can all either be confirmed true or false

And as far as Phenomenology, that is the raw sensation of feelings -- or the instance of an experience taking place inside the brain -- these are physically forced generations of chemical reaction. These are also not just taking place inside the brain, *they are taking place inside the universe*. They are not a payload or claim about truths and falsehoods and cannot be refuted or denied once they occur. Even if, for instance, you felt pain by an object that didn't actually hit you. Even after realizing the fact the object didn't hit you, it does not follow that pain wasn't felt. Note you cannot go back and revise a **phenomenological** **state** and correct it, based on updates of information, like you can with **epistemological** **claims**. Note that **placebo** and **psychosomatic** and **illusory** effects exist, which allow experience to arise **independent** and even **contrary** to all other factors of reality; such as feeling better by taking a useless innocuous sugar pill, feeling worse by convincing yourself you can't do better, or experiencing a total disruption of all worldly coherence by taking intense hallucinogens. Note therefore phenomenology actually transcends "understanding" and "misunderstanding".

Because it is the *event* of **sensation** and **experience** in it of itself that is the real and concrete thing taking place in the universe. Phenomenological states cannot be put into the same pile as epistemological claims -- doing so is not only a categorical error, but phenomenology also overrides epistemology (it can't be refuted by it). Because for as long as the experience and sensation is happening, it remains irrefutable. Once the sensation stops happening, then it is simply *no longer the case that the sensation is happening*. Note there is no room in that for "refuting" the sensation and experience, it's like saying you can argue a running car out of existence.

## **Objective Value - Advanced**

### **Nociception** and **Negative Valence**

DNA life is the incident of deterministic chaos, has no reason to continue existing, serves no need or purpose while doing so. But DNA life is not just any code strung together by careless happenstance of physics - it also the code that invented every conceivable pain and harm. Since we don't want to commit ourselves to ambiguous babytalk, instead of "bads, pains, ouches", this can be signified as Nociception in biology or Negative Valencein affective neuroscience. This is "objectively negative value", not opinions of bad value. It does not rely on the subject to "subjectively opine it with property", because correctly: the property was determined **for the subject, not by the subject.** The values are not dice, and they are not wildcards -- they cannot be indeterminately or arbitrarily decided by the system they are instantiated in. These values are commenced by the universe's material determinism (just like literally everything else) - they are not commenced by *any* subject's discretion or whimsy. The values are galvanizing physical forces of truly distinct property. These values are not "outside" of reality, they cannot be discounted from reality's equation just because they happen in nerves and brains. It also doesn't matter if they are activated "by" or "as" or "in" non-identical substrata, catalysts, entities, or "subjective" systems -- IE.

- One subject has **positive** valence instantiated by peanutbutter, resulting in relieving nourishment.

- One subject has **negative** valence instantiated by peanutbuter, resulting in anguishing allergies.

Because such difference in no way changes the fact that each objective value exists, and exists **distinctively** and **statically** (they keep their static values and their separate values) - it's just that they are not instantiated totally **identically** across subjects. And finally, the fact that the event(s) and value(s) occur in subjects (more accurately called entities) does not refute, invalidate, or change even a single part of what happened. This is the point where the non-concrete (incoherent) idea of "subjective value" has been chopped up and examined as objective configuration in objective terms.

Antinatalism and EFILism is based on preventing and eliminating objectively negative value from even having potential to exist.

### **Axiology**

We have reduced the non-concrete, subjectively incoherent tug-o-war of bads and goods. We found and concluded this one, fundamental, unchanging, identical objective truth: "**Sentient life starts with the need to fix needs or be seriously harmed**." That's the DNA bargain - an inherent negative and inherent jeopardy. No guarantees of satisfaction, safety, fairness, or purpose whatsoever. At bedrock, it is nothing more than needing to fix your deprivations, and being seriously harmed if you fail at doing so. Further, you have no possibility of permanently fixing the deprivations, or permanently protecting yourself from them. In other words: Your deprivation and harm is **always** guaranteed; your satisfaction and safety is **never** guaranteed.

And that is the end statement... or one of them. It captures and proves the entire point, that it is malignantly self-defeating for life to even exist - not just because negatives (deprivation and harm) is objectively more weighted and constant - but because life creates all of its own problems and drawback *by existing. This* includes needing any level of positive value in the first place**.** Conversely, If life is prevented, every one of its possible problems and drawbacks are also prevented. And that includes the p*roblem of missing life's positives* and the problem of missing benefits.

1. You cannot miss a benefit if you are not created,
2. you cannot endure a drawback if you are not created,
3. and you cannot be harmed if you are not created;
4. but that is only ***because*** you are not created, and only ***if*** you are not created.

Therefore, it is still always crucial to ensure DNA life doesn't get created*.* The fact nobody would get created to appreciate this is ***irrelevant*** - because it doesn't refute this case or change anything about it - because it's still the case that every problem and drawback is successfully avoided by refraining from ~~creating life~~ conducting an indefensible useless biological experiment. An experiment based entirely and primarily on

1. Needful harmful deprived states,
2. then secondarily having to work to fix those 1st conditions,
3. then pretending you accomplished something by solving all those problems that *you created,*
4. but that you could have just **not** created
5. and had no sane or rational reason to create to begin with.

With all things considered, there is no rational argument whatsoever to defend the DNA life experiment. There is also no benevolent argument either: Positive value is an absolute conjob. DNA's positive experience mechanism is a total farce: because beneath the facade, we have realized all positive experience amounts to a *non-benevolent non-gratuitous cruel excuse of a gift* that keeps life desperately running and simply hoping not to be the next tragedy. Positive value doesn't protect you from anything, you can't exchange it for anything, and negative value will always nullify it.

DNA is a malignant molecule formed by a braindead accident of physics. And *the universe* is a broken chaos that is equally useless and careless as DNA itself. It's got nothing for us, folks. We're alone and nothing cares, we have no mission, except trying to save ourselves from DNA and the universe's exact carelessness. Life's only possible mission is trying to save life from how useless and malignant DNA and the universe is. Surely you can appreciate how deranged of an irony this is. We fix no other brokenness, and serve no other purpose in the universe. We are just snagged inside an ugly accident of physics... for now.

Humanity has otherwise failed to offer a single meritorious, useful, or sane thing accomplished by this zero-sum unintelligent design of bio-chemical evolution known as life. The case to the contrary has been stacked mountain high, utopian ideals are as weak as ever, technology is more dangerous than ever, positive experience has been proven null. What exactly are we waiting for again?

We're waiting for just enough of the world to reach a modicum of maturity. That is, when they admit they have no argument to this and they're essentially self-indulgent god-bothering megalomaniacs -- who have never given any of this honest thought -- who are biologically-programmed with a maniacal impossible lust to live forever and spread genes forever -- and who have just re-branded the god delusion with the DNA delusion being described throughout this Wiki.

Many of these people are holding out for a life utopia, without even knowing what "the dual use of technology" is. These are people with **no** game-theory and **no** risk-assessment. Characterized by pure, unrealistically-thinking, childish, dangerous foolishness -- riding a wave of absolute hope-dope delusion -- and zero logical testing to back up the *contrary position they're espousing*.

So this will continue... until we either technologically-obliterate ourselves by the usual quarrels of war and human folly, then the sun burns the last trace of life off this rock in 1.3 billion years - **or** - if we do it by calculated **rational** **strategy.** That is, when enough of the world grows up, and frees themselves from that stupor. This will promote phase-changes in the hivemind. Even small sectors of humanity could make an atmospheric attack surface out of this place and turn it into Venus overnight, which is not only more realistic than any utopia, but would constitute **infinitely** **less** harm or ultimate risk in the process.

And nothing - and nobody - needs to be glad they weren't subjected to life's psychotic uselessness, in order for this solution to be valid and sound.

It's not necessary for an entity to appreciate the fact that DNA is a useless zero-sum biological experiment conducted by a malignant braindead universe, in order for it to indeed be a useless zero-sum biological experiment conducted by a malignant braindead universe. The relativity/subjectivity/identity counterargument regarding all that was a complete sophistry. It was raised out of a last stand desperation, to hide the fact there is really no argument for DNA life's existence - and it's about as far from an ace in the hole for DNA-redemption as you could get.

### **Double-Action Failsafe and Solution**

The following QEDs show the prevention of life is a double-action failsafe and solution for all negatives and positives:

QED #1

1. The prevention of all **positives** cannot be a problem but is a solution, precisely because prevention of life ensures there are no losers, victims or problem-havers.

2. The prevention of all **negatives** cannot be a problem but is a solution, precisely because prevention of life ensures there are no losers, victims or problem-havers.

QED #2

- Prevention of a loss requires **absence** **of a loser**

- Prevention of a victimization requires **absence** **of a victim**

- Prevention of a problem requires **absence of a problem-haver**

- Prevention of a harm requires **absence of a harmed**

- Prevention of a deprivation requires **absence of a deprived**

- Prevention of life's existence causes the absence of all harm, losers, victims, problem-havers and deprivations

- This renders the prevention of life the prime point of success and solution, making it impossible to consider even absence of positives to be an actual remaining problem or negative

And this applies regardless of any possible subjective view or opinion -- even if you viewed non-existence of life to be the maximum negative value, it's only life's existence that's making it possible for you to maintain that maximum negative value state: because life is the engine that's doing it. It's not non-existence of life creating the maximum negative value state. So **turn the life-engine off,** and it cannot maintain maximum negative value toward *even the idea of the life-engine being turned off*. **Keep the engine off**, and there can never be a problem or victim that results from the life-engine ever again. Keep the engine off, and it can never be problematic to lose any so-called positive generated by the life-engine. And it is only by ensuring the engine stays off that this is successfully accomplished. Behold the double-action failsafe and solution. (See point A. through E. if you even think of citing technological utopia or the idea of infinitely recurring life.)

## **Objective Value - Expert**

### **Transparency** Vs. **Ontology**

**Ontology** is the obsolete and archaic explanation of consciousness through "**metaphysics**".

**Transparency** is the functionalist and modern explanation of consciousness through **physics.**

And the answer for why we cannot deny the existence and value properties of phenomenology is also due to transparency:

Transparency is a technical term in the modern philosophy of mind. Consciousness is "transparent" if the system using it cannot, by introspection alone, recognize it as a representation. If consciousness were to become "opaque" (that is, if it were actually possible to "value" or "devalue" it as only a mechanical representation, like Hythloday71 and other nihilists suggest), then we would **lose** that exact property of consciousness. Think of it as opening a fridge door to check if the light is on or off, the truth of the answer **depends** on whether the door is open or shut. So you can probably see the problem: To deny the value of consciousness while being a transparent model of consciousness---and while other transparent models keep existing in the universe---you are using an **Analysandum** of **Opacity** argument that reduces consciousness to deniable values, which completely misses the Explicandum and Explicans of **Transparency** that renders that very Analysandum of Opaque value-deniability impossible. Until you establish an **Explicandum** and **Explicans** of **Opacity** in consciousness, like DNA did with Transparency, your Analysanda of Opacity is essentially nothing more than a failed thought experiment that cannot coincide with reality.  Inmendham and Efilists acknowledge this, so we do not attempt to refute consciousness as *a mechanically opaque, valueless or deniable representation,* this philosophy acknowledges consciousness is *a mechanically transparent representation, that necessarily maintains undeniable properties of value in order to even exist.*

This demonstration concludes why unconstrained/unanchored theorizing and logic (Analysanda) is insufficient to discount the Explicandum and Explicans of objective reality. This crucial distinction is that which makes-possible the refutation of all forms of misfired reductionism, nihilism, agnosticism, subjectivism, skepticism, dualism, nominalism, idealism, and all other logically-primitive models of truth that commit such error.

Recall that a representation is transparent if the system using it cannot recognize it as a representation. A world-model active in the brain is transparent if the brain has no chance of discovering that it is a model. A model of the current moment is transparent if the brain has no chance of discovering that it is simply the result of information-processing currently going on in itself.

We have arrived at a minimalist concept of consciousness. We have an answer to the question of how the brain moves from an internal world-model and an internal Now-model to the full-blown appearance of a world. The answer is this:

If the system in which these models are constructed is constitutionally unable to recognize both the world-model and the current psychological moment, the experience of the present, as a model, as only an internal construction, then the system will of necessity generate a reality tunnel. It will have the experience of being in immediate contact with a single, unified world in a single Now. For any such system, a world appears. If we can solve the One-World Problem, the Now Problem, and the Reality Problem, we can also find the global neural correlate of consciousness in the human brain. There is a specific NCC (neural correlate of consciousness) for forms of conscious content (IE. one for the redness of the rose, another for the rose as a whole, and so on) as well as a global NCC, which is a much larger set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, or all currently active forms of conscious content, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at a given moment. Solving the One-World Problem, the Now Problem, and the Reality Problem involves three steps:

1. Finding a suitable phenomenological description of what it’s like to have all these experiences.

2. Analyzing their contents in more detail (the representational level).

3. Describing the functions bringing about these contents.

Discovering the global NCC means discovering how these functions are implemented in the nervous system. This would also allow us to decide which other beings on this planet enjoy the appearance of a world; these beings will have a recognizable physical counterpart in their brains. On the most simple and fundamental level, the global NCC will be a dynamic brain state exhibiting large-scale coherence. It will be fully integrated with whatever generates the virtual window of presence, because in a sense it is this window. Finally, it will have to make earlier processing stages unavailable to high-level attention. Source.

## **Objective Value - Master**

### **Transparency**

Transparency is the answer for virtually every question regarding why real experience happens -- and why anything seems to be the case at all. Transparency is the reason water is wet, it is the ultimate reason why experience itself exists, and it is the explicans for the hard problem of consciousness.

T**ransparency** is a property of epistemic states defined as follows:

1. An epistemic state E is **weakly transparent** to a subject S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know that S is in state E.
2. An epistemic state E is **strongly transparent** to a subject S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know that S is in state E, AND when S is not in state E, S can know S is not in state E.

Pain is usually considered to be strongly transparent: when someone is in pain, he knows immediately that he is in pain, and if he is not in pain, he will know he is not. Transparency is important in the study of self-knowledge and meta-knowledge. Source.

For starters, transparency is a property of active mental representations that are already satisfying the minimally sufficient constraints for conscious experience to occur. Some of these constraints might even be necessary conditions. For instance, phenomenally-transparent representations are always activated within a virtual window of presence and are functionally integrated into a unified global model of the world. Transparency results from a structural/architectonic property of the neural information-processing going on in our brains.

The second thing which makes mental representations transparent is when they are **not** attentionally available to earlier processing stages in the brain for introspection. Attentional availability is a form of non-conceptual meta-representation operating on certain parts of the currently active, internal model of reality, the conscious model of the world. By guiding our attention towards a perceived object, we achieve a selection and an enhancement. By turning towards the phenomenal representation of this object, we automatically intensify the information processing in the brain, which underlies it. Simultaneously we increase our degree of alertness and orient towards the object in question. Within the representational architecture of the human mind, the guiding of attention is a supramodal capacity. For instance, attention can be shifted around independently of eye-movements, i.e. it can move within the visual field while the position of the eyes remain stable. Another beautiful and classical metaphor is that of describing visuo-spatial attention as a “cone of light.” This metaphor is consistent with a functional analysis of attentional meta-representation, because objects in the cone of light of attention are processed in a better, faster, deeper fashion.

Another definition of Transparency is, for every phenomenal state, the degree of phenomenal transparency is inversely proportional to the introspective degree of attentional availability of earlier processing stages. This definition diverges from earlier notions of phenomenal transparency in allowing us to describe three important facts about phenomenal consciousness, which philosophers have frequently overlooked.

1. Firstly, cognitive availability of the fact that currently active phenomenal contents are the final products of internal representational processes is not enough to dissolve or weaken phenomenal transparency. *The naïve realism of our experience remains*. One cannot “think oneself out of” transparency (one’s phenomenal model of reality) with the help of purely cognitive operations alone. To simply have a mentally represented concept of the book you are holding in your hand, perhaps as being only a special form of representational contents, does not change the untranscendably realistic character of your phenomenal experience at all – at least not in a way that would be relevant in the current context. However, there seems to be a relevant difference between cognitive and attentional processing between conceptual and non-conceptual meta-representation of first-order phenomenal states. Only if you could actually attend to the construction process “itself” would you experience a shift in subjective experience, namely by adding new and non-conceptual content to your current model of reality.
2. Secondly, this definition departs from the classical vehicle-content distinction. The standard way of defining transparency would be to say that only content properties of the phenomenal representata are introspectively available to the system, and not vehicle properties. The vehicle-content distinction is a highly useful conceptual instrument, but it contains subtle residues of Cartesian dualism in that it always tempts us to reify the vehicle and the content by conceiving of them as ontologically distinct, independent entities. A more empirically plausible model of representational content will have to describe it as an aspect of an ongoing process and not as some kind of abstract object. What we need is embodied content, as it were – or rather, not “a” content, but an ongoing and physically realized process of *containing.*
3. Finally, describing phenomenal transparency in terms of the attentional availability of earlier processing ***stages*** has the advantage of being able to develop many different, fine-grained notions of ***degrees*** of transparency and opacity. For different phenomenal state-classes resulting from different types of processing, it may also be possible to describe not only variable degrees, but distinct ***kinds*** of transparency and opacity. This allows for a much more realistic description of certain phenomenological features pertaining to different classes of conscious states.

Transparency is a special form of darkness. With regard to the phenomenology of visual experience transparency means that we are not able to see something, *because* it is transparent. We don’t see the window, but only the bird flying by. The negative fact that we don’t see the medium, the window, is itself not explicitly represented in the seeing process itself. Phenomenal transparency in general, however, means that something particular is not accessible for subjective experience, namely the representational character of the contents of conscious experience. This analysis refers to all sensory modalities and to our integrated phenomenal model of the world as a whole in particular – but also to large parts of our self-model. The instruments of representation themselves cannot be represented as such, and hence the system making the experience, on this level and by conceptual necessity, is entangled in a naive realism.

This happens, because, necessarily, it now has to experience itself as being in direct contact with the current contents of its own consciousness. What precisely is it, which the system cannot experience? What is inaccessible to conscious experience is the simple fact of this experience taking place in a medium. Therefore, transparency of phenomenal content leads to a further characteristic of conscious experience, namely the subjective impression of immediacy. Many bad philosophical arguments concerning direct acquaintance, infallible first-person knowledge and direct reference are based on an equivocation between epistemic and phenomenal immediacy: from the fact that the conscious experience, e.g., of the color of an object, carries the characteristics of phenomenal immediacy and direct givenness it does not follow that any kind of non-mediated or direct kind of ***knowledge*** is involved.

Of course, there may be coincidences of phenomenal immediacy and epistemic immediacy. But phenomenal content – as such – is not epistemic content, and it is a widely held and plausible assumption that it locally supervenes on brain properties. For every veridical perception there will be a hallucinatory state, indistinguishable from the first-person perspective. What is common between the two is their phenomenal content (I like to call it the “lowest common denominator,” or, more traditionally, “the highest common factor”; see Metzinger 2004). Phenomenal content can be dissociated from intentional content: a brain in a vat could possess states subjectively representing object colors as immediately and directly given. Any fully transparent phenomenal representation is characterized by the vehicle-generating mechanisms, which have led to its activation, plus the fact of a concrete internal state now being in existence and carrying its content, not being introspectively available anymore. The phenomenology of transparency, therefore, is the phenomenology of naive realism.

And of course, ***opaque*** phenomenal representations do exist as well. Here are some preliminary examples of opaque state-classes: Most notably consciously experienced thoughts, but also some types of emotions, pseudo-hallucinations or lucid dreams are subjectively experienced as *representational processes*. Such processes sometimes appear to us as deliberately initiated cognitive or representational processes, and sometimes as spontaneously occurring, limited or even global phenomenal simulations, frequently not under the experiential subject’s control. Lucidity, becoming aware that one is dreaming in a dream, is the standard example of a situation in which all of the conscious model of reality is suddenly experienced as a model. Source.