X-Message-Number: 13007 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:10:49 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Potentials, Actuality, Suffering, Existence Bob Ettinger writes: >Basically, the >hard-core strong-AI people say the abstract is as good as the concrete, the >potential as good as the actual, the map as good as the territory, a >description of a thing essentially the same as the thing itself. This may >turn out to be true, but I strongly doubt it. > I wouldn't go so far as to say that "the potential is as good as the actual" (and I am a pretty hard-core strong AI advocate). For instance, the digits of pi in base 10 are probably random enough that any finite string of digits can be found in them, and even infinitely often. So somewhere, presumbably, there is a finite string that describes everything that has happened in our finite universe since the Big Bang, at the quantum level. (A very big string, of course.) You and me are there, doing our things. But I don't see this as quite the same as you and me here and now. And I don't think one is forced to conclude "pi is conscious" or some such thought just because one chooses to regard as conscious a certain robot with a sequential processor. Keith Rene Dugue writes: > >I did not say that a state of non-existence should be considered , or actually is, >"worse" than any state of existence. What I did say was that "There can be no >death advantage simply because once one does not exist one can no longer >appreciate the purported advantage. ..." If there is no death advantage then it's hard to see how one could consider the state of non-existence any *better* than any other state, however bad. To me, it might be said that one can "benefit" from some things without being aware of them. There might pain I have never experienced, and I benefit by not experiencing it, I would say, even in dreamless sleep, when effectively I am, temporarily, nonexistent. > >You seem to be saying that suffering is dependant on existence. Yes indeed, or more precisely, "existence as a conscious being." > But so is one's ability to comprehend ,be aware and appreciate that one is not >suffering. Again, I think one can benefit from *not* experiencing a negative, even when unaware. >What one can not be aware of is irrelevant to that individual. With this I disagree. Would you rather be trapped in a lake of lava forever, or totally oblivious? Or closer to home, suppose an evil terrorist has kidnapped you, who is very good at excruciating, utterly unbearable, horrifying torture. And he is going to kill you, but you have a choice. (1) You can elect to take a painless, lethal injection that will end your life after 6 hours of total unconsciousness. (2) You can be wide awake but tortured for 6 hours first, then killed. These are your only two choices. Which would you choose? If it is (1), how do you justify this? Being totally unconscious, it would seem you cannot appreciate the benefit. So would you then choose torture, or not care one way or the other? > My garbage can is not suffering (for reasons other than >Szsw8Dx1Yw5Uk8CGuN8RR1iiRUygw3lIa7tsIxdbW Sorry, I missed the end of the message. Actually, as an additional comment, I find myself agreeing with Bob Ettinger, that life potentially is something of value, with a preponderance of satisfaction over dissatisfaction. In particular, don't think anyone will be endlessly tortured. (As another possibility, I also believe in an "afterlife" of sorts, a duplicate of you must inevitably recur, given the sort of reality we inhabit, so no state of oblivion can be final.) Another thought is that a death advantage may well seem more real to someone who believes (unlike me) that eventual death is inevitable anyway. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13007