I think it’s more like the outward manifestation of some neurosis.
I suggest you think more carefully about whether you really want to endorse the standard of judging (and potentially dismissing) what people say based on hastily constructed theories about their personality flaws.
Anyway. Suppose you wanted to construct a hypothetical example that trades off, on the one hand, an immortal and basically positive lifespan, and on the other hand, X.
What X would you, thankfully neurosis-free and admirably aware of the importance of choosing good hypotheticals, choose that could plausibly be traded off for that?
I’m reminded of the old joke about a ham sandwich being preferable to eternal happiness.
I see your point, but I guess my problem is that I don’t see why constructing these tradeoffs is productive in the first place. It just seems like a party game where people ask what you’d do for a million dollars.
Like, in the situation here, with uploading, why does immortality even need to be part of equation? All he’s really saying is “intuitively, it doesn’t seem like an upload would ‘really’ be me”. What happens to the upload, and what happens to the original, is just a carnival of distractions anyway. We can easily swap them around and see that they have no bearing on the issue.
Yeah, as I said earlier, if you can’t think of a better way to have the conversations but don’t think those conversations are worth having at all, I have nothing to say to that.
Like any conversation, they’re interesting to the people they interest, and not to the people they don’t… I don’t really understand why people talk so much about football, for example.
I suggest you think more carefully about whether you really want to endorse the standard of judging (and potentially dismissing) what people say based on hastily constructed theories about their personality flaws.
Anyway. Suppose you wanted to construct a hypothetical example that trades off, on the one hand, an immortal and basically positive lifespan, and on the other hand, X.
What X would you, thankfully neurosis-free and admirably aware of the importance of choosing good hypotheticals, choose that could plausibly be traded off for that?
I’m reminded of the old joke about a ham sandwich being preferable to eternal happiness.
I see your point, but I guess my problem is that I don’t see why constructing these tradeoffs is productive in the first place. It just seems like a party game where people ask what you’d do for a million dollars.
Like, in the situation here, with uploading, why does immortality even need to be part of equation? All he’s really saying is “intuitively, it doesn’t seem like an upload would ‘really’ be me”. What happens to the upload, and what happens to the original, is just a carnival of distractions anyway. We can easily swap them around and see that they have no bearing on the issue.
Yeah, as I said earlier, if you can’t think of a better way to have the conversations but don’t think those conversations are worth having at all, I have nothing to say to that.
Like any conversation, they’re interesting to the people they interest, and not to the people they don’t… I don’t really understand why people talk so much about football, for example.