I’m curious about that. In what eutopian sense sex is better than poo?
Why are you confused about that? You wrote a whole post on your arbitrary preferences! I arbitrarily prefer one of them to another. That one of them is sex and one of them bowel movement should make the causal factors behind my preferences fairly unsurprising.
Because in the sentence that I quoted a comment above I thought I recognized that you were making a more general statement than uttering a personal preference. You attached the qualifier ‘limiting’ to my other preferences, so I thought there was a general, independent-from-you side that you were pointing at. Was I wrong?
a general, independent-from-you side that you were pointing at.
Not independent from arbitrary subjective preferences. Although there are certain trends and associations one can observe in the preferences of others. One could reasonably imagine something of a spectrum on how ‘core’ people consider certain traits to their identity, ranging from positive social connections on one side down to digestive details on the other. You present rather a lot from lower down on that spectrum. Things that many would not consider the lack of to constitute a dystopia.
Forgive me if I appear dense to you, because I’m more and more confused. You write about subjective preferences and then about a continuum with positive social connection on one side and digestive detail to the other. May I ask you of what parameter this is a continuum of?
Maybe the “what would you loose first if you were forced to?”-asked-to-core-people parameter?
Let me recap: given the possibility (not just the necessity) you would bail out of having to have to expel the waste produced when ingesting food. That would stop there? Having the possibility of dispose of other bodily function, would you? And having the possibility of having other functions enhanced, would you?
I’m not asking this because I don’t believe you, I’m asking because you might present an important point in the data-set of the model I’m trying to build
Let me recap: given the possibility (not just the necessity) you would bail out of having to have to expel the waste produced when ingesting food
Yes.
That would stop there?
Conceivably but unlikely.
Having the possibility of dispose of other bodily function, would you?
I’m indifferent to breathing. I don’t much care about toenail growth. I certainly see no need for snot if any health function is rendered obsolete.
And having the possibility of having other functions enhanced, would you?
Yes. But note that this is not an enhancement in the direction of orgasmium, pleasure maximisation, happiness maximisation or any other one dimensional function. It is in the direction of whatever my arbitrary preferences happen to be. Right now I haven’t given enough thought to details and don’t pretend to have the self awareness to give a precise prediction of what my preferences would resolve to.
I’m not asking this because I don’t believe you, I’m asking because you might present an important point in the data-set of the model I’m trying to build
I’m curious about that. In what eutopian sense sex is better than poo?
Why are you confused about that? You wrote a whole post on your arbitrary preferences! I arbitrarily prefer one of them to another. That one of them is sex and one of them bowel movement should make the causal factors behind my preferences fairly unsurprising.
Because in the sentence that I quoted a comment above I thought I recognized that you were making a more general statement than uttering a personal preference. You attached the qualifier ‘limiting’ to my other preferences, so I thought there was a general, independent-from-you side that you were pointing at. Was I wrong?
Not independent from arbitrary subjective preferences. Although there are certain trends and associations one can observe in the preferences of others. One could reasonably imagine something of a spectrum on how ‘core’ people consider certain traits to their identity, ranging from positive social connections on one side down to digestive details on the other. You present rather a lot from lower down on that spectrum. Things that many would not consider the lack of to constitute a dystopia.
Forgive me if I appear dense to you, because I’m more and more confused. You write about subjective preferences and then about a continuum with positive social connection on one side and digestive detail to the other. May I ask you of what parameter this is a continuum of? Maybe the “what would you loose first if you were forced to?”-asked-to-core-people parameter?
Approximately. Although replace ‘core’ with ‘most’.
Let me recap: given the possibility (not just the necessity) you would bail out of having to have to expel the waste produced when ingesting food. That would stop there? Having the possibility of dispose of other bodily function, would you? And having the possibility of having other functions enhanced, would you?
I’m not asking this because I don’t believe you, I’m asking because you might present an important point in the data-set of the model I’m trying to build
Yes.
Conceivably but unlikely.
I’m indifferent to breathing. I don’t much care about toenail growth. I certainly see no need for snot if any health function is rendered obsolete.
Yes. But note that this is not an enhancement in the direction of orgasmium, pleasure maximisation, happiness maximisation or any other one dimensional function. It is in the direction of whatever my arbitrary preferences happen to be. Right now I haven’t given enough thought to details and don’t pretend to have the self awareness to give a precise prediction of what my preferences would resolve to.
I’m not asking this because I don’t believe you, I’m asking because you might present an important point in the data-set of the model I’m trying to build