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

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 25, 2006, at 12:17 PM, A B wrote:

> 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?

The Universe is a damn big place.  Short of crashing space-time I  
don't see it happening and of course I don't see any way that could  
be done.  Tell me, if a Being came a long so powerful that it *could*  
crash space-time what would be able to monitor and control it that  
was immune to possibly making the same suicidal error?

Would you want a super-totalitarianism for all posthumans just on the  
off chance that one of them might do something really stupid, by  
accident or on purpose?  Do you want super-totalitarianism or as  
close as we can get to it here and now on earth to prevent some evil  
genius from say, cooking up gray goo or a super-plague in the privacy  
of his or her basement?

I don't think much less than super-totalitarianism by a hopefully  
guaranteed benevolent government or later a SAI more powerful (and  
kept that way) than anyone and anything else that can come along will  
get you full safety.  Personally I value freedom far more than that  
level of safety.   And I am very cynical about the "guaranteed  
benevolent" part.

>
> 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.

Even if the players volunteered to perhaps experience such negative  
things?

>
> 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.
>

Then perhaps it would be better to address the points of actual  
contention instead going off a bit on things no one really advocates.

>
> 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.
>

At similar levels of complexity murder is murder.  However, creating  
a world where murder and other grievous wrongs may occur among the  
inhabitants is not murder or necessarily immoral.    That is the  
point I have been attempting to get across.


- samantha