[extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey)

[A B]

Hi Samantha,
   
  Samantha wrote:
  "It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to 
really screw up."
   
  Then do you believe that a post-human should have the right to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life within this Universe?
   
  Samantha:
  "Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of 
complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or 
outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than 
just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have 
argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous 
beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on."
   
  I have indeed played violent video games, however, I was quite confident that my computer/game was not conscious and suffering. If I ever thought otherwise, I would immediately cease playing it. Any software that includes intentionally inflicting pain on conscious beings should be outlawed.
   
  Samantha:
  "This is a straw man that was not advocated."
   
  I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case.
   
  Let me ask you a question:
   
  I assume that we agree that a "real" being and a conscious "simulated" being are both composed of hardware and software and that both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". Why should ending the life of a "simulated" being, be viewed any differently than a "real" being murdering another "real" being? Why should torturing a conscious "simulated" being, be viewed differently than a "real" being torturing another "real" being? The crimes are equivalent. The only "factor" that would supposedly separate the status of a "real" being from the status of a "simulated" being is that the "real" one was born first and therefore supposedly deserves to wield ultimate power over the one that was born later. That's "messed up"; it's legally allowing murder and torture.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich 


  Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
  
On May 25, 2006, at 10:22 AM, A B wrote:

> Although I was completely sincere in everything I wrote in my last 
> post on this thread, I realize that it may have come across as 
> excessively morbid. I did not mean to put a damper on this 
> particular topic; perhaps I can rephrase my position on this.
>
> My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose of 
> the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly cruel 
> and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about bringing 
> universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this dead Universe, 
> then *what* is its purpose? Does the Singularity boil down to a 
> frenzied power struggle? Where the "winner" is rightfully entitled 
> to do *anything* ve wishes in the name of "Freedom", with zero 
> regard for morality? A struggle where the primary deciding factor 
> is purely blind luck - being at the right place at the right time? 
> I'm sorry, but that's a really f****d up reason for pursuing the 
> Singularity.

It is about bringing more intelligence and greater possibilities to 
this corner of the universe. Whether it achieves or can achieve a 
bunch of utopian universals or not does not gate whether it is 
desirable. I do not know and rather doubt whether such a list as 
"universal joy, love, compassion, beauty" is even well defined much 
less achievable. It is not utter perfect utopia or total 
dystopia. The actuality is likely to be more complex and 
multifarious than that.

>
> If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to do 
> absolutely *anything*, then we should allow someone in the future 
> to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life, in the name 
> of "Freedom". Note: I am not at all advocating this action, I'm 
> just pointing out a glaring contradiction within this particular 
> philosophy.

It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to 
really screw up.

>
> What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of lower 
> value and importance than a "real" being? Both are comprised of 
> hardware and software, and they both exist at the "real" layer of 
> "reality". One is simply a slave and the other a master. Does a 
> "real" being have some mystical birthright that gives it absolute 
> authority over a newly created "simulated" being? No. One being was 
> simply lucky (and born early) and the other being was simply very 
> misfortunate (and born late).

Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of 
complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or 
outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than 
just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have 
argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous 
beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on.

>
> This would basically be the same result as if today, half the 
> world's population rounded up the other half and proceeded to 
> torture them mercilessly. The difference would be that in the 
> future, the victims of torture could be made to never die, and 
> instead endure terrible pain for all eternity (or for at least as 
> long as the Universe exists).
>

This is a straw man that was not advocated.

- samantha

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


			
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the  all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060525/6ed7f60f/attachment.html>