The distinction you mention is very important, and it is one I tried to communicate I was aware of. Of course we can conceive of lots of circumstances where life “having” to continue would be bad...
The question is whether unlimited life renders everything valueless? It seems to me that some big chunk of life’s value lies in it’s novelty, and another big chunk in relatively rare and unique experiences, and another big chunk in overcoming obstacles… eternal life ruins all of that I think.
Mathematically, wouldn’t every conceivable possibility be bound to occur over and over if you lived forever?
It seems to me that some big chunk of life’s value lies in it’s novelty, and another big chunk in relatively rare and unique experiences, and another big chunk in overcoming obstacles...
I doubt that novelty, rarity, or overcoming obstacles have any value by themselves, only that they are associated with good things. But supposing that they had a value of their own—do they encompass all of life’s value? If novelty/rarity/obstacles were eliminated, would life be a net negative? It seems implausible.
Mathematically, wouldn’t every conceivable possibility be bound to occur over and over if you lived forever?
Not if new possibilities are being created at the same time. In fact, it’s probable that an individual’s proportion of (things done):(things possible) would decrease as time passes, kind of like now, when the number of books published per year exceeds how much a person would want to read.
Fulfilling a biological urge need not be something of value. For example, eating when you’re hungry feels good, but it may be good to abolish eating food altogether.
Fulfilling a biological urge need not be something of value.
Your frontal cortex might decide it’s not something of value, but the lower levels of your mind will still be quite sure it is. Hardwired is hardwired.
The distinction you mention is very important, and it is one I tried to communicate I was aware of. Of course we can conceive of lots of circumstances where life “having” to continue would be bad...
The question is whether unlimited life renders everything valueless? It seems to me that some big chunk of life’s value lies in it’s novelty, and another big chunk in relatively rare and unique experiences, and another big chunk in overcoming obstacles… eternal life ruins all of that I think.
Mathematically, wouldn’t every conceivable possibility be bound to occur over and over if you lived forever?
I doubt that novelty, rarity, or overcoming obstacles have any value by themselves, only that they are associated with good things. But supposing that they had a value of their own—do they encompass all of life’s value? If novelty/rarity/obstacles were eliminated, would life be a net negative? It seems implausible.
Not if new possibilities are being created at the same time. In fact, it’s probable that an individual’s proportion of (things done):(things possible) would decrease as time passes, kind of like now, when the number of books published per year exceeds how much a person would want to read.
Given that curiosity seems to be a hardwired-in biological urge, I would expect that novelty and rare experiences do have value by themselves.
Fulfilling a biological urge need not be something of value. For example, eating when you’re hungry feels good, but it may be good to abolish eating food altogether.
Your frontal cortex might decide it’s not something of value, but the lower levels of your mind will still be quite sure it is. Hardwired is hardwired.