Chuck has all the answers but he won't tell us Re: Money, happiness, and the halting problem Re: I can finallyanswerone point-blank

[Brian Atkins]

"Victor J. Orlikowski" wrote:
> 
>  > Actually, you don't seem to be getting it. Your words do not seem to be
>  > in any way related to what I originally said regarding happiness being
>  > nearly equivalent to the meaningless state of getting high. I was not
>  > attempting to say that in a literal way (taking certain drug = exact
>  > feeling of happiness); rather it was a comparison meant to show the
>  > transient unimportance of all of our experiences UNLESS we find some
>  > way to continue living. The whole point being that if you kick the bucket
>  > then so do your hard won and cherished experiences, thereby making it
>  > all pointless. Lasting achievement must stay tied to the physical world.
> 
> Transient unimportance, eh? To whom, is the question.

No

> 
> Experiences are highly personal, nothing more or less; on this I
> expect that we agree.

Yes

> 
> Making *what* all pointless? Are you saying that the experience in
> itself, the MOMENT, is unimportant, even unto the individual? That the
> only life worth living is the one recorded for your descendants to be
> "proud" of? That, heaven forbid, there is a heaven and you have
> something to look down upon, swell your chest at and think
> *important*?  Assuming that the earth lasts seemingly "forever"?

No times 4 (if I counted right :-). The only thing I'm trying to say
is the opposite of what you're saying there. The experiences become
pointless, UNLESS the individual who is carrying them around can
survive. And no I do not believe in mystical things. Rather, my
organization is working on technology we hope will allow all of us
to survive for as long as we want (within the limits of physics of
course...).

> 
> Or is it that what you call happiness is defined by others?

No

> (In which case, it is still defined by you; you just choose to permit
> your internal state to be wholly manipulated by external forces, which
> can simply be referred to as experiences. :)
> 
> Happiness is what the individual makes of it.

Happiness is pointless unless you survive.

> 
> The definition of achievement, just as the definitions of happiness,
> importance and a thousand other nebulous concepts, are also personal.
> You yourself are the only fit judge in these matters, in any case.

But what about the SAT? just kidding...

> 
> If toking up in the middle of the day and being a lump on the couch is
> what makes one individual "happy," and they "feel" no pressing need to
> "achieve" anything else, who are you to argue this "happiness?" Why is
> this "happiness" meaningless? What relevance does "meaning" have to
> happiness, other than at the individual level?

See above

> 
> And now, to briefly return to our original topic: If money is the only
> thing that makes more experiences (and thereby possibly more
> happiness) possible for you, then I have to say that you are *sorely*
> lacking in imagination. But you should certainly seek for money, in
> that case.

If you mean more experiences in terms of making it possible to live
indefinitely then I have to disagree about the imagination part. I
seem to keep throwing stones, but the people lacking in imagination
are the ones who can't imagine living "longer than normal".
-- 
Brian Atkins
Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/