[ExI] Real & virtual worlds

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

 > [Lee wrote]]

>> Right now, playing golf sounds to me not at all fun. [Which
 >> *obviously* could altered by a minor cerebral modification.]
>> The real question is, "When I can decide what feels like fun,
>> what should I decide?".
>>
>> What do we want to decide, and why? I would gladly switch
>> my taste and expertise in chess for an equivalent taste
>> and expertise in finance.
> 
> It seems that you consider chess as not being as intrinsically
> worthwhile as finance,

"Intrinsically worthwhile"?  Goodness, whatever do you mean by that!

> which creates some tension as you prefer the
> less worthwhile activity.

"Prefer" has two senses here. I actually vastly prefer chess,
but I would prefer to prefer finance. "Man can do what he wills
but he cannot will what he wills", which is gonna change soon.

> An alternative would be to make it so that chess is at
 > least as interesting as finance,

Hmm?  I meant to state that right now, chess is very interesting
to me, while finance is incredibly boring to me.

> so that you can think of those people making millions
 > with a few mouseclicks as pitiful in their inability
 > to appreciate what's really important in life.

"What's really important in life"?  Evidently you misunderstood
the entire thrust of my argument. There are no such things that
are of *intrinsic importance*, unless you impose a more or less
arbitrary set of values on them (not a bad idea, of course).

Consider these activities:

A. trying to get the world's starving people adequately fed
    (or if you live in a rich nation, spying on obese people
    and strategically luring them into discussions that---so
    to speak---tip the scales in their thinking so that they
    make healthier life style choices)

B. studying rocket science and scheming to do everything
    possible to help along projects like Burt Rutan's, or
    medicine and Aubrey DeGrey's

C. investigating the world of household plumbing, especially
    the myriad differences around the world, and learning
    about the various solutions per dollar spent & becoming
    a world-class master plumber

D. playing chess, absorbing the striking masterpieces
    of the famous grandmasters, and becoming much more
    skilled at the game itself

Do any of these have more "intrinsic worth", period?  I.e.,
not merely more intrinsic worth to individual X (who is only
a mere hypothesis by natural selection as to what might be
fit and what might produce a lot of kids).

The answer is no! "Intrinsic worth" unqualified, like beauty,
lies strictly in the eye of the beholder!

What is paramount in this discussion is that we will be able
to soon alter our own will, alter our own preferences according
to *any* set of criteria we choose. Call it the post-Schopenhauer
era, if you will. :-)

Lee