From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 00:40:10 MDT
Anders wrote (Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:42:47 +0200 Subject: A vision)
> As I see it the word life should not be interpreted narrowly and
> parochially as our particular kind of water-protein organisation but as
> complex self-replicating and evolving systems as a whole.... And these
> forms of life are equally worth our reverence and appreciation as the
> traditional wet kind. There is no fundamental difference between created
> and born life, except possibly that the former has a morally responsible
> .parent..
Sounds quite right, except for the lack of stress on "experience".
In your fine essay, you speak often of valuing life for its own sake,
and---if we are to compare it to emptiness or dead matter---I agree
fully and absolutely. But of what value is ordinary life when
compared to life which can host subjective experience?
The main point to life, so far as I can see, is to generate living
experience. That is, unless there are entities around to *enjoy*
existing, it's not of much use.
As progressive and avant garde as your essay is in our world today,
this is the extropians list, and I would like you to criticize a
parallel vision. It is an emotionally unappealing view, at least
when considered visually, as I readily admit. This vision consists
of nothing but matter throughout the solar system being turned into
ugly silicon, or silicon-like matter capable of processing information.
All other forms of existence would yield, and be replaced by whatever
computronium-like substance we can engineer to provide the greatest
possible amount of positive experience for the greatest possible
number of sentient entities.
I will not attempt the necessary paragraphs to communicate the
vastness of the complexity, joy, richness, fulfillment, and
satisfaction that this image rightfully possesses, and devolves
onto sextillions of entities or their equivalent. But I would
hope that the happiness of matter is not sacrificed for traditional
"natural" concerns, e.g., conventional ecosystems, which can hardly
be said to enjoy life all that much.
(Of course, there are many problems: what if a provision for one
"utility monster" in some manner provides matter with more and
higher quality experience than providing for trillions of lesser
entities? Just how our allegiance to freedom and to private property
evolution will cause all this to turn out is surely not foreseeable.
But that's all right IMO; we can hardly wish to impose any kind of
top down global solution. I would hope that the owners of matter will
simply work towards using it to maximize positive experience for entities,
that's all, regardless of how many natural environments, trees, or
beetles are sacrificed in the process.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 18 2003 - 00:51:49 MDT