From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 02:40:29 MDT
On Saturday 19 July 2003 11:14, John B wrote:
> [quote from: Samantha on 2003-07-17 at 16:52:19]
> Optimal must be defined in terms of what is, not what may be if there is to
> be
> any sort of optimal path from *here* to any *there* we might dream of.
>
>
> Samantha -
>
> IMO, you're definition is more right than wrong - but the wrong you may be
> calling for here is quite dangerous. If everything must be defined in
> PRESENT terms, then there's no reason to accept any risk for potential
> future gain.
>
Not so. I spoke of "what is" as being crucial to meaningfully speaking of
what is optimal as far as extropic choices and outcomes. But "what is"
includes the likely futures. However, it does not weigh hypothetical beings
more highly than actually existing beings, for instance. It does not claim
the good of some hypothetical number of hypothetical beings will be secured
by utterly destroying the good of millions of real beings. We can't get to
a really good outcome *there* without using means compatible with that good
*here*.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 02:48:05 MDT