From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Sat Sep 04 1999 - 13:00:31 MDT
Brian Manning Delaney wrote,
>There are definitely some schools of thought that make such claims, but, in
my
>view they fail. How, after all, would one ground the notion that "the
purpose is
>to have fun"? Not that, personally I believe such a view has zero merit. I
just
>think it can't (easily, at least) be justified.
Avoiding boredom has to rank as our most important purpose, because if you
bore folks, they just won't listen to you.
No need to justify it, because the justification would only bore listeners
that much more, and they'll tune out your message. Even the best ideas have
to avoid boredom. Read, for example, the brief history of fatbrain.com.
>For me, this is a question, not a certainty about method: is it, indeed,
that
>one gets into the realm of mathematical proofs here? Or is it that one gets
into
>the realm of whether mathematical proofs are the right way to answer these
>questions? The former is Russell (more or less), the latter is
Wittgenstein.
>Wittgenstein, in my view, was closer to being on the right track.
Wittgenstein offered (IMO) the best proof of hedonism:
"7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Trying to prove that you enjoy life for itself takes the fun out of it,
for both sides of the dialogue.
<snip>
>Empirically, yes, this is our only option. But in deciding whether or not
aliens
>might pervade our world, we can entertain other options.
I'll drink to that.
.--, .--,
( ( \.---./ ) )
'.__/o o\__.'
={= ^ =}=
> - <
"I don't want to make a religion (or ideology, or political movement) out of
anti-entropy.
I'd just like to help extropic technologies evolve auto-catalytically toward
transhumanity."
--Alligator Grundy (attributed to Jean Robaire Leakey-Gasquet)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:01 MST