Well, suffering is bad, and more suffering is worse than less, and knowingly acting in a way which increases suffering is wrong.

This just sounds like minimizing a loss function. by this definition, aren't most machine learning algorithms in constant suffering, which they seek to reduce?

You've presented absolutely no evidence beyond the initial, evidence-less, assertion.

Which assertion? That suffering is bad? If suffering isn't bad, do you have an example where its suffering isn't bad for something?

The suffering of non-human animals holds zero moral weight.

I am having trouble deciding if a conversation with you is possible, you do not seem to be a rational being. You use the word "bad" in a way that another person would if they were saying "this is either bad for me personally, for those I care about, or humanity in general".

Does that mean you'd include sea urchins and wombats in "humanity in general"? If it did, then you're mentally ill in a way I'm not qualified to treat.

When a lion eats a gazelle in Africa (or anywhere else, I suppose, if such events occur), it is nothing that I or other humans should care about. It does not matter that the lion eats it while it is alive instead of "slaughtering it humanely" (imagine how I have to word that idea, it's absurd).

This "suffering" does not make the universe less optimal. If I could push a button to increase the intensity of that "suffering" a thousandfold, or increase its quantity (or even both!), is there any reason not to push that button? If I didn't push the button, mind you, it would only be because the suffering of those gazelles matters not to me one way or the other. If I could decrease the intensity/quantity with a different button, I wouldn't push it either... and for the same reason.

For that matter, if suffering exists at all in any meaningful way (that is, empirically quantifiable), I'd still contend that it only exists for humans. Non-humans can't suffer, they are from a moral standpoint nothing more than meat robots.

> The suffering of non-human animals holds zero moral weight.

That's just false. Do you think humans are some God chosen species which makes them magically matter while the rest (including aliens on other planets I suppose) lacks that godly spark?

> I am having trouble deciding if a conversation with you is possible, you do not seem to be a rational being. You use the word "bad" in a way that another person would if they were saying "this is either bad for me personally, for those I care about, or humanity in general".

Yeah, and any normal human would understand the sentences "my cat hurt its foot, I hope it doesn't suffer too much." and "If it suffers, that would be bad".

> Does that mean you'd include sea urchins and wombats in "humanity in general"? If it did, then you're mentally ill in a way I'm not qualified to treat.

Who said sea urchins are humans?

> When a lion eats a gazelle in Africa (or anywhere else, I suppose, if such events occur), it is nothing that I or other humans should care about. It does not matter that the lion eats it while it is alive instead of "slaughtering it humanely" (imagine how I have to word that idea, it's absurd).

Well, humans can do little about suffering of animals in the wild, but that doesn't mean their suffering doesn't matter. Your own pain doesn't matter less when it can't be treated.

> If I could push a button to increase the intensity of that "suffering" a thousandfold, or increase its quantity (or even both!), is there any reason not to push that button? If I didn't push the button, mind you, it would only be because the suffering of those gazelles matters not to me one way or the other. If I could decrease the intensity/quantity with a different button, I wouldn't push it either... and for the same reason.

This seriously sounds psychopathic.

> What is suffering?

Pain is one of the few sensations that is unmistakeable. If you think you are in pain, then you definitely are.

If "pain" is synonymous with "suffering", then I suspect that using the latter term is a deliberate attempt to emotionally manipulate me.

Pain is a signal of impending damage/injury, or existing damage/injury that may well worse if not dealt with immediately.

All signals within a human nervous system can be mistaken in principle. Why would this one be different? Phantom pains that indicate no injury seem plausible.

> Pain is a signal of impending damage/injury, or existing damage/injury that may well worse if not dealt with immediately.

Pain is not necessarily associated with injury.

>All signals within a human nervous system can be mistaken in principle. Why would this one be different? Phantom pains that indicate no injury seem plausible.

What would phantom pain feel like? Would it hurt? Then it is incidental that it phantom and is nevertheless pain. If you believe you are in pain even if there is no stimulus associated with it, then you are in pain. You can not mistake pain regardless of whether it is "real" or not. What makes pain so special? It hurts, it is painful.