I don’t know that I’m qualified to make that call. I think I’d rather defer to people with more and better-optimized processing capacity. But… it often seems that everything worth preserving about humans, is really only worth preserving in some humans, and the rest of us are really just redundant expressions of the same traits.
Very well. In that case, I’d like to note that “confident that there are no better uses to which their atoms could be put” seems, to me, to be a very non-Bayesian way of looking at things.
I’d rather say that I know many people for whom I have weak prior weight (0.55 − 0.7) towards the idea that they would be better off recycled, and I know a smaller number of people for whom I have reasonably strong prior weight (0.8 − 0.9) that they have contributed causally to changes in the local universe that I consider positive, and that any other configuration of atoms that might have contributed to an equally positive change would take longer to search for in configuration space than simply letting them continue to exist as-is.
I adopted the “no better uses” formulation because you initially seemed to be contrasting them with the less-sparkly and less-alive of us who you seemed confident are made of atoms that can be put to better use, and I was trying to stay consistent with that usage, I’m not committed to it.
So, rephrasing my question in the terms you use here: How many individuals are you aware of for whom you have a reasonably strong prior weight that any other configuration of atoms that will contribute to equally positive changes in the future as their current configuration would take longer to search for in configuration space than simply letting them continue to exist as-is?
So, rephrasing my question in the terms you use here: How many individuals are you aware of for whom you have a reasonably strong prior weight that any other configuration of atoms that will contribute to equally positive changes in the future as their current configuration would take longer to search for in configuration space than simply letting them continue to exist as-is?
Heh. MAN, English sucks for this.
I’d say a few hundred that I’m directly aware of (either through direct acquaintance or media awareness); given my sample sizes and some back-of-the-envelope math, I can extrapolate that out globally to “a few million people”.
Hw many individuals are you aware of about whom you are confident that there are no better uses to which their atoms could be put?
I don’t know that I’m qualified to make that call. I think I’d rather defer to people with more and better-optimized processing capacity. But… it often seems that everything worth preserving about humans, is really only worth preserving in some humans, and the rest of us are really just redundant expressions of the same traits.
I assure you, I don’t intend to implement a culling strategy based on your answer. I’m just curious about your answer.
Very well. In that case, I’d like to note that “confident that there are no better uses to which their atoms could be put” seems, to me, to be a very non-Bayesian way of looking at things.
I’d rather say that I know many people for whom I have weak prior weight (0.55 − 0.7) towards the idea that they would be better off recycled, and I know a smaller number of people for whom I have reasonably strong prior weight (0.8 − 0.9) that they have contributed causally to changes in the local universe that I consider positive, and that any other configuration of atoms that might have contributed to an equally positive change would take longer to search for in configuration space than simply letting them continue to exist as-is.
That’s fine.
I adopted the “no better uses” formulation because you initially seemed to be contrasting them with the less-sparkly and less-alive of us who you seemed confident are made of atoms that can be put to better use, and I was trying to stay consistent with that usage, I’m not committed to it.
So, rephrasing my question in the terms you use here: How many individuals are you aware of for whom you have a reasonably strong prior weight that any other configuration of atoms that will contribute to equally positive changes in the future as their current configuration would take longer to search for in configuration space than simply letting them continue to exist as-is?
Heh. MAN, English sucks for this.
I’d say a few hundred that I’m directly aware of (either through direct acquaintance or media awareness); given my sample sizes and some back-of-the-envelope math, I can extrapolate that out globally to “a few million people”.
(nods) kk, thanks