From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 13:37:53 MST
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:15:19 +0900
"Metaqualia" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > No, it is not "modest". However, as an evolved sentient being, I have an
> >overwhelming supergoal of survival and the survival of my kind. So I will
> asked to be
> >excused from lining up for the no doubt "humane" extermination of humanity
> if the
> >ever so inscrutable SAI decides it must be so.
> > >I do not rule out that killing everyone off could
> > > be a good idea.
> > In that case I will not help you with any project you may undertake.
> >By this statement you are a potential major enemy to much I hold dear.
> You are being very honest and I respect your opinion as long as you know
> exactly what you have said, i.e. that you have no choice in the matter since
> you are an evolved being programmed to value personal survival above all
Since such a choice is explicitly not in my interest I would be quite irrational to choose my own demise except for a higher goal. Read again. I did not say I am unable to choose differently. I said I choose not to support someone who believes it is quite ok to kill off his entire species.
> I've been dead for 20 billion years before I was born. That didn't feel too
> bad. I have broken a nail yesterday, got weird stuff around my fingernail,
> felt not so good. Is being dead wrong, or is staying dead wrong, or is dying
> wrong? I am not sure. But let's drop the death discussion since it's too
> controversial, my bad, shouldn't have mentioned it.
Ah, I see. It all centers in your mind around how you feel. How unfortunately enlightening.
> > If reality itself doesn't meet his exacting standards
> Not mine, but the standards of a transhuman AI who has high confidence it
> has achieved absolute moral knowledge, and who is faced with the necessity
> of making a quick choice without the possibility of going back to try again.
Wait! You have previously claimed there is no absolute morality. Thus there is no "absolute moral knowledge". How can there ever be a "choice" to choose to do away with reality itself which includes the "choice", chooser and all context completely? It could only be remotely justified by something outside of reality itself, yes? Your position appears to be more and more incoherent.
> >If the "interpretation" was what convinced you of the advanced civilization
> residing in
> >a soap bubble in your bath, then it is certainly not true that you can now
> drop your
> >mere needless interpretation and let the soap-bubble super-civilization go
> on its
> It's not my theory, I just like it :)
> If you read the essay and still are convinced that it is nonsensical, you
> can mail the author.
If you aren't going to stand up for what you like and present as authoritative on a question then why bother to pretend to be answering?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT