From: Heartland (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2008 - 13:25:52 MDT
>>>> hey, Slawek, how come you don't put attributions at the
>>>> appropriate places in your posts---at least lately?
>> Because I realized you don't do that. I was trying to make you more comfortable
>> adopting your style of posting.
> Yes I do. At the top of every post I say who said something. Later
> on, when I think it's "obvious" I drop it. But mistakes can be made :-)
> See how it says "Heartland writes" up there? I don't think that you'll
> even find one post I wrote on this list where I don't do that---even
> if I do issue a preamble of sorts first.
Yes, you do that, but once you scroll down it's sometimes hard to figure out who
what, which is why I prefer attributing each group of paragraphs and make
everything visually clean for crystal
clarity. I think I'm the only one who bothers to do that.
>> You still haven't answered the main question (the one I keep asking at the
>> beginning of my posts). You can always ask anything you want but please
>> know that we won't go very far until you're able to answer the original
>> question or realize the answer doesn't exist.
> Sorry---what question is that? Can you repeat it, please? I will
> try again to answer it.
It's the same question I've been asking since the beginning of our discussion.
First, I asked you why
memories were important to you. You answered it was because you wanted to remain
like Lee Corbin. Then I asked why being "like something" was important, and you
replied that people don't want to be like rodents, for example. Since I'm not much
closer to getting the answer, I'm asking it again below.
>> So can you please explain what point you were making when you said people don't
>> want to be like rodents?
> People don't want to be as small as rodents, or have as short a lifespan, or
> have as little intelligence, or be so ugly (in human bias). There are also
> surely many other features of rodents in general that people in general
> do not want.
Wait. You're making the exact same point as before, namely, that people don't want
to be like rodents because rodents experience lower quality of life (small size,
lifespan, decreased intelligence, ugliness). I thought we agreed that a
potential change in quality of life could not have influenced your desire to not
become like a rodent. If you imply something other than lower quality of life, what
Regarding the other paragraph I snipped (see, I'm doing my share :-)), I'm well
aware that people don't want to be drastically different than they already are, and
know what they mean when they say, "I want to be like Brad Pitt," but I still have
not received an explanation for *why* it's so important to you not to be like
someone/something else. Do you think this explanation exists?
>> It's crucial that we identify what it is, exactly, as it's the same thing
>> that causes you to say, "I want to remain like Lee Corbin."
> We are not yet sure that it is the *same* thing. I may have other
> reasons for wanting to remain Lee Corbin besides acquiring the
> characteristics of rodents.
What are they?
>>> ...is [it] that under anaesthesia, perhaps you believe your "instance
>>> of mind process" is ended?
>> It's an objective fact. Even all cryonicists should have no problem
>> this simple truth. An instance of any type of process ends when it stops. If you
>> catch a ball, its flight ends. What can be less confusing than that?
> Just checking. Just confirming that you believe that what you value
> really would be lost if you take anaesthesia. Right? I mean, you
> would refuse general anaesthesia if you went to a hospital and the doctors were
> going to perform an exceedingly, exceedingly
> painful operation?
It's complicated. My final decision would have to take into account potential size
of area under the "pain over time" curve on a xy-plane--where x-axis denotes time
and y-axis measures intensity of pain--for both cases. In the end, it's all about
quality of life for me, so, if the size of area under "pain over time" curve
a certain limit (not sure what it is right now, I don't think it's very high) in
any case, I
would accept general anesthesia as surviving with this limit exceeded would make no
sense either. IOW, the quality of life would reach unacceptably low levels.
>> I will always try to find something that will hopefully invalidate
>> this view, but, so far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.
>> What's worse is that, the more I think about it, the final
>> conclusion seems more obvious in retrospect.
> Well, that can happen even if one is dead wrong.
I suspect it's at least less likely to happen than seeing something as more obvious
in retrospect and be right about it.
> Would you like for someone you love to go under anesthesia?
I wouldn't have liked it even if I had believed in new-age-inspired theories such
as that "people are adjectives," to quote my inebriated persecutor. I wouldn't
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT