Rationalizing qualia-based morality

From: Metaqualia (metaqualia@mynichi.com)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 06:06:23 MST

I have started to notice that most arguments about my qualia based morality
arise on the positive qualia side (is orgasmium better than heaven on earth
etc.) None have emerged on the negative qualia side. Which is quite all
right because we are not in a very good situation on the average and
limiting losses has the priority over pure hedonism. Whatever transhuman AI
is finally created, if the creators are not unfriendly it will probably
allow freedom to continue, and with freedom the possibility to discover the
best form of absolute good will exist, so it may not be for us to choose if
paradise A is better than paradise B.

For now, I will be satisfied if we can agree that limiting negative qualia
in sentient beings is an inherently worthwhile goal. If we can agree that
"limiting negative qualia" is a better, more general principle than "do not
sleep with your brother's wife" then I am even more satisfied. If we can
stop using "human" in our definitions of good and replace that with
"whatever sentient even remotely looks like it has first-person experiences
which produce similar states to human reported qualia, according to bleeding
edge scientific knowledge at the time of measurement" then even better.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT