From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 10:57:11 MDT
"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com> Wrote:
> Hmm. Well, *survival* may still be an objectively
> true or false state of affairs (along a sliding scale
> of course). I hold that it is.
The sliding scale is the killer, and no objective test will ever be
developed for this sort of thing because it involves consciousness and that
by definition is subjective. And besides, the desirability of survival and
the undesirability of unpleasant thoughts is certainly subjective.
> Gee, you must really hate going to sleep!
The very last thoughts before I sleep are so weak and unfocused that they
hardly deserve the name, and the thought "this is the last thought I will
ever have" does not occur to me and that is the one I don't much like.
At no point do I feel that a thought can not be continued in the morning
so I'm not frightened.
>just how much would I have to pay you to try midazolam?
I don't know if the drug really works as you say but if I was fully awake,
active and alert and believed that everything I thought for the next
half hour would be totally lost by tomorrow morning it would scare
the holy hell out of me and you don't have enough money.
>What about a 60-second delay teleporter where it's
>with some sexual fantasy company?
You flatter me, but the truth is if I thought I was 60 seconds away from
oblivion I would have a lot of things on my mind and I'm not sure I could,
ah, rise to the occasion.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:35 MST