[ExI] To be or not to be, that is the question

[Stefan Pernar]

On Nov 12, 2007 6:23 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2007 3:58 AM, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The result was very interesting. Soon I realized that the listed beliefs
> > started to contradict each other so I had to think deeper and rewrite
> some
> > of them. That lead to new insights and resulted in a set of 40 beliefs.
> Some
> > of them are trivial and some of them are interesting. Most axiomatic
> however
> > is the following belief:
> >
> >  1.2.3.2 To exist is preferable over not to exist
>
> I think this is an interesting effort, because so much of the axiology
> behind different options is left implicit, and while I do not believe
> for a moment that such proceedings may lead to universal consensus, at
> least they clarify what is implied by different positions, logical
> consistency being a hardly disputable value in most conceivable
> systems.


Thanks for your comments.  In regards to your opinion on the universal
consensus those that prefer not to exist over existing would remove
themselves from the discussion. Do you know what I mean?

Concerning the axiom 1.2.3.2, I think however that it should be
> dissected further. Should it be qualified by adding "all other things
> being equal"? (In fact, Hamlet chooses *not* to exist, or at least to


I am trying to define things further and expect some interesting results in
the near future.

face substantial existential risks, because he cannot bear the current
> status of things).


I saw that aspect of the text and see it as a reflection on whether or not
to make a last stand effort to ensure his dignified existence.


> And existence of *whom*? The subject speaking?


Every human being, and everything humans regard as worth keeping around -
details to follow.


> How can this subject be understood? As his or her genes whispering? At an
> individual level? At a political level? At a "universal" level?


Honestly? I am not clear right now...


> And "universal" what would refer to what exactly? Currently living human
> beings? The mankind as a species? The mankind, including possibly
> speciated successors thereto? A species leaving a radically different
> progeny behind should be considered as "extinct" or as "evolved"?Would
> successors here mean only biological successors of "children of the
> mind" would qualify as well?


In an initial attempt I would say everything that could object to
non-existing or to the non-existing of something. Fleshing this out will be
my next focus.


> And I could continue with regard to possible different meanings of
> "existence"...
>

Please wait with that for now ;-)


> All that is not a purely theoretical game, because it involves
> different and sometimes diverging strategies and concerns...
>

Will post infrequent updates according to my progress.
-- 
Stefan Pernar
3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden
#6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi
Chao Yang District
100015 Beijing
P.R. CHINA
Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071113/4122b733/attachment.html>