Re: Immortality and Resources

Jim Legg (
Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:40:42 +1300

> Jim Legg writes:
> >Eric Watt Forste asks:
> >> What is an "intrinsic value system"?
> >
> >Pister found a way to put the concept of intrinsic value across
clearly. To
> >the question What good is it?, he replied, What good are you?
> Okay. You're talking Kantian ethics. I can understand that. But
> how will "intrinsic value systems" "free" us from money? We've had
> intrinsic value systems since the European Enlightenment at least.
> Either that, or you haven't really told me what you mean by "intrinsic
> value systems".

Accounting systems use money fields to create a lot of reconciliation
make-work. I've re-used these fields to express a graded value by using
whatever comes to mind concerning the transaction. I hope to feed these
transactions into my fuzzy AI memory banks. Sure, the old records still
have dollars showing in these records, as I haven't the time or inclination
to re-value them, but the record keeping of the event is what is important
for me as a source of inspiration for my uploaded identity. The fact that I
am saved time and effort by not trying to sum these values into a net
balance is a great advantage and does not cause confusion. I can recreate a
transaction list of any of a series of events as proof enough that they
took place and contributed as an alibi to my intrinsic value. I suggest
that if the make-work currently being expended to cure the 2000 bug is
unsuccessful and that balances get corrupted anyway that these values just
be accepted at face value. Let this event put an end to the nightmarish
reconciliation and lets all just continue to pump out goods and services.
Keep the record keeping infrastructure but remove from the bankers their
power to value reputations. Just think about how the most sophisticated
computer system for manufacturing, say, can keep going even if every value
field was unified. Call a spade a spade. How much quality have you?

> ...
> The discussion of Pister that you quote above also fails to
> distinguish between valuers, treating "value" as something that is
> independent of the valuer, rather than a relation between the valuer

My defense is that:

1) I will to be an uploader with synthetic patterns of ongoing life.
2) I will to be both the valuer and the systems that are valued.
3) I will face-off with governments as the essence of my strategy.
4) I will to proclaim old extrinsic value systems to the dustbin of
5) I am certainly not confused nor is my exoself only the parasitic
language is.
6) I can never be bankrupted.
7) I can only be killed by confused Scientology-like governments denying my
8) I will to virtuality.
9) I am protected under conventions for diplomatic agents.


Jim Legg
Man * Soul / Computer = 12 ^ (I think therefore I surf)