On 12/20/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Dec 2012, at 17:01, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
<mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life?
Some pro-life doctor are against euthanasia, even passive
euthanasia, with the result that they transform dying patient
into machines. But most of them are naive believer, and as such,
they disbelieve comp, and so their pro-life activity begins to be
contradictory.
The question is: does an artificial, or even virtual body,
enhance life or suppress life?
Bruno
That's tricky.
The aristotelean pro-life doctor does not believe she/he is turning
the dying patient into a machine. That Doctor thinks they are saving
the universe from one of its fundamental properties: death, entropy.
I don't know if most of them are "naive believer" in the sense that
most doctors in this domain are well aware that it is a loosing
battle, and I guess "outing" yourself as "pro-euthanasia" carries
some heavy implications in your day to day practice, interaction, and
judgement from peers, directors, and employers. I guess, most would
be "cooler" with this if they could. So "naive believer", yeah maybe
some, but more I'd guess live in fear of getting their voice heard.
To tackle the question straight-on:
1) depends on manufacturer, market, price and warranty conditions,
and the local universe. You did remember to submit the appropriate
forms before rental of "Bruno", didn't you? I say this, because it
seems like sometimes you forget with this kind of question :)
I am not sure I get the point. Mine was only that the pro-life doctor
will transform people into machine (as they do already somehow), and
that can contradict the general anti-mechanist prejudice of many
pro-life activists.
Dear PGC and Bruno,
This is an excellent topic as it gets us into the ethical realm of
comp! I am very happy to see this discussion! I have some questions. Are
we thinking of Life qualitatively or quantitatively? Do we have a
canonical definition of life with which to make judgements, as to its
value, that are truthful under all conditions?
2) Heidegger was just joking. Nobody was "thrown"; he just got a bit
of nausea after signing all the soul-body binding contracts and wants
modification of warranty terms. I don't know whether his appeal was
heard by the courts, any of you?
Lol. But still don't see the point. keep in mind that logicians are
simple mind :)
Overly so, sadly. Rationality has an Achilies heel, it cannot see
its own limitations. This is not to say that I advocate that we cast
aside rationality, but that we understand that all reasoning is limited
inherently by its premises, those axioms and truths that are assumed in
its "headcanon" (to borrow a term from fan discussion groups) and so we
just at least assume some form of believe in fallibility and always be
on the look out for situations that are genuine failures to predict
accurately, for our personal belief system's truths (aka headcanon).
3) But after flying for platonic infinities through every possible
universe as a disembodied soul eye with infinite memory at any speed
you wished, you would go sign up for another round to be entangled
with some strange universe physically again and push the "format
disk" button once again and agree to all constraints, just for
novelty's sake and say "sh*t, it's boring here... but I am no
chicken, I choose a local universe where aristoteleans are winning,
just to make it more interesting, because the platonic localities are
too much already like here...also, I'll choose one where matter is
really convincing and makes us unable to define life properly, so
that I can pose this question in a forum someday, and confuse the
others a bit, hehe."
OK. But for once, my question was terrestrial. Of course such question
makes less global sense in Platonia, but can still make sense locally,
even there.
Bruno
PGC, your scenario assumes the impossible: to maintain a memory of
the flight one must have infinite memory storage capacity *and* the
ability to instantly retrieve any bit of data from such. Our currently
best theories that you would collapse into a black hole the instant you
started such a flight if you where a physical being. If your a ghost and
free from physical laws, how could you interact with physical worlds at
all? But I think that you are trying to make a different point...
Indefinite life extension seems to have a price, you can not
remember who you where in any past incarnations. Actually, it would be
accurate to say there there is no "you" in any 3p sense at all. There is
only a 1p idea of what you thing you are and what you can prove. Betting
that we survive a QS event is what we do continuously by interacting
with the world, we survive physically in a 3p sense only because in the
continuation there is a body that you can find yourself in that looks
close enough to the old one and your environment looks pretty much the
same, so you don't notice that your entire universe and body is brand
new, one 10^44 sec. later but with signs of age. This is Last Thursdayism.
We think that this idea is somehow wrong because we can appeal to
some-kind of absolute 3p that can somehow "tell the difference", good
luck with that. Real gods never answer back in a 3p way.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
