From: William Pearson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 04:00:36 MDT
2008/10/27 Stathis Papaioannou <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> 2008/10/27 William Pearson <email@example.com>:
>> 2008/10/26 Stathis Papaioannou <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>> 2008/10/27 William Pearson <email@example.com>:
>>>> Let us say you believe in many worlds and you had been offered the
>>>> chance to upload into a deterministic simulation to live forever, any
>>>> quantum randomness would be generated by PRNG. It would be so good,
>>>> you wouldn't know you had been uploaded. Assuming you value the lives
>>>> of people you will never encounter, should you upload?
>>> Personally, I don't think of the loss of potential people as a real
>>> loss. I only worry about already existing people who can anticipate
>>> their own death.
>> I don't think infants and toddlers can anticipate their deaths... they
>> may not like pain but they have to learn about death itself later on.
>> Care to refine your position?
> In an unsophisticated way, infants and animals can anticipate their
> deaths, since they formulate desires and plans, which would be
> thwarted if they die. This can't be said for organisms without nervous
> systems, nor for potential organisms that might never be realised.
Would you say it was rational to take a treatment to extend your life
by 20 years, if it made you sterile and if female incapable of having
IVF? Assuming you weren't sure about the singularity/massive
improvements in reproductive tech happening before you died.
Not counting potential people at all, seems like a possible recipe for
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT