From: Metaqualia (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 19 2004 - 06:57:11 MDT
> Either positive or negative. Do you advocate death in the preponderance of
> negative qualia? What if in some years the balance would change? You can't
Do I advocate death in the preponderance of negative qualia? I prefer to
discuss this privately since
1. It will take everyone's interest away from the more important
implications of this theory
2. Realistically even with just human-level intellect and _some_
nanotechnology the balance of positive vs negative qualia can be extremely
favorable. If we go into super-human AI and total control over matter then
it's easy to see that negative qualia do not need to exist at all.
> Actually one's wishes may do that, then again they may not. There are
> who knowingly and wilfully take actions against their own interest. We may
Against their own interest, means, against their own long term interest,
which means, against their goal system (if they had one). Look at people who
do things against their interst. People smoke. Because they like the smoking
quale. People gamble, and inevitably lose money in the long term. But they
like the gambling quale. So the fact that people take actions against their
own interest just proves my point.
> argue for ages whether this has a selfish or altruistic reason at its base
> but the behaviour does exist. Do you advocate destroying this type of
Why destroy altruism? Altruism creates warm fuzzy feelings and lets humans
bond, if it weren't for the kick in the rear nature gives us when our
_personal_ needs are not satisfied, we'd all be very altruistic, constantly
giving and constantly happy about giving.
> I wouldn't like to be happy for the sake of being happy. OK, you can say
Because according to your current goal system, happiness itself is
associated with acquiring material wealth and power and other things. When I
propose happiness for the sake of happiness, you automatically transform
this word into "not happiness" since "happy for the sake of being happy"
does not have much utility in your current goal system. However the "happy"
I am proposing is the same "stuff" that happens when you are happy for the
sake of other stuff; it is not something you rationalize and to which you
are free to assign a happiness value. Happiness is happiness! Can't possibly
not like it :)
> happiness is not a supergoal, and give us what we really want, not a
> eternal orgasmic machine.
I think you are grossly underestimating an eternal orgasmic machine. In
fact, to imagine an orgasmic machine you must not imagine an orgasmic
machine. You will probably imagine a world in which everyone is productive
and joyful and altruistic and you have a beautiful house and you are in love
and your kids are healthy and whatever you happen to desire. Imagine the
most intense and wonderful moments of your life. That is more like an
orgasmic machine! With all the subtleties of these experiences, not just an
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 20 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT