I realize this question is extremely petty, but it has professional implications for me. Chat GPT-4 gave my dissertation a B+ and GPT-5 gave it an A. The dissertation is in analytic metaphysics. Which model is more reliable for this kind of cognitive task?
But if we follow that definition of harm we get to an untenable place. Big boys gotta eat, and broccoli is good for you. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I see no reason to draw the line so far back that we're considering clumps of cells on the same level as us.
We can do that, sure, but what do we gain? More heartache, harder decisions, more prison time? What's the benefit?
I wouldn’t use ‘harm’ as the moral delineator, depending on the context it’s very much ok to do harm. It isn’t sufficient context on its own.
I think it’s the attempt to be moral by a simplistic definition of ‘doing no harm’ that leads to the contortions to the definition of harm. In this context we’re talking about if it’s ok to harm a small set of cells, and again it depends on context. Consider the act of assaulting a pregnant woman to harm the fetus, it’s the same fetus that has come to the same harm the only thing that is different is who made the choice.
Yea, I have. I ordered one from vagus.net in February 2023. Over 6 months, it forcibly kicked me off a 20 year SSRI prescription. I've been using it now for about 2 years, weekly if not daily, and although I still regularly feel depressed about the world, I also feel my other feelings (which were blunted on those SSRIs). I no longer live in a state of fight/flight, though I'm quick to walk away when approached by strangers. Overall the tVNS has been lifesaving for me and my autistic-AFAB-CPTSD friends. (Autism by itself involves vagus dysfunction.)
Ancient metaphysical dispute between Platonists and Aristotelians (nominalists) debunked as disagreement between neurotypicals and Autistics, who have deficits in high-level vision.
