From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 03:07:23 MDT
Eliezer wrote:
> GTS, you are attacking a strawman. I suppose 100.0000%
> subjective assurance of immortality would be convenient
> for peace of mind...
It's not a matter of subjective assurance. It is a matter of objective
science.
>.. but what all of us are interested in
> is actually living forever.
We're all interested in the same thing.
> If you choose to define immortality in some odd way such that
> Someone who actually lives forever is not "immortal" because
> that person "could have" died or did not
> at any point have an absolute subjective assurance of
> immortality, you are talking about a quantity that we
> do not necessarily care about.
That is not my definition. It is yours. My definition of "immortal" (and
Webster's) is "exempt from death."
Either it will be possible in principle to be exempt from death, or it
else it won't be possible. Hand-waving arguments about the theoretical
probabilities of achieving immortality do not really answer the
question.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:41 MST