Jack, > There are some people who will, but relatively few. That is what counts for > QS to be invalid.
Hmm, that does not make QS invalid (see Quentin and Jonathan's posts for my views on the issue, they have expressed everything clearly), and in fact you have already conceded QI (by asserting that measure never drops to null). It seems to me (judging from your abstract) that your real problem is with the ethical conclusions which may or may not follow from QI. But then the correct way is not to argue against QI but to tackle the ethical questions head on. Hilary Greaves would be an example (care for all your successors); or even better, adopt a benevolent attitude toward all conscious OMs so that you try to act to _increase_ conscious states (of all beings) in the whole universe, and not decrease them. I do not see a true ethical problem following from QI when people are ethical in the first case. And if they are not, I don't think that QI will add much incentive to be unethical. Cheers, Günther --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
