[extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral?

[Jef Allbright]

On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at tsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Jef Albright writes  (hi Jef!)
>
> > On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at tsoft.com> wrote:
> > > Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having
> > > any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into
> > > and out of existence in a nanosecond?  Instead of worrying about
> > > the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness
> > > and suffering.
>
> > Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of
> > sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying
> > that same life is therefore bad.  Others would argue, as you
> > seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative,
> > that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad
> > respectively.
>
> Actually, I agree totally with *both* of these propositions. As
> Anders say, the creation of life (say, as opposed to vacuum) is
> good. And as Pearce writes, happiness is intrinsically good
> www.hedweb.com.



(1) The creation of any particular instance of life is not necessarily
good.  Supporting examples include diseases and pathological structures at
the individual and social levels.  With regard to life as a process we can
agree that the process tends to lead to good by virtue (!) of natural
selection and the resultant growth of that which tends to work over
increasing scope.  From our position within that process, we cannot but see
this as tending toward the good.  For those who simplify this to "life is
extropic, therefore good", I agree, but again this is referring to the
process and not any particular instance.

In your example of a person who briefly passes into and out of existence in
a nanosecond, such existence carries no moral weight whatsoever because
there are no consequences whatsoever.  The implication that it is a person
and therefore could be ourself, is irrelevant.  As discussed extensively on
this list and elsewhere, if we were in fact living in a simulated universe
and it were being switched on or off, at whatever duty-cycle, there would be
no way to know and no reason to care -- from within the system.

So on to happiness and suffering.

(2) Happiness functions as an indicator of progress toward goals, and for
that reason it tends to correspond with what is considered good (what is
seen to work over increasing scope.)  But to confuse an indicator of
progress with progress itself is like confusing a map with the territory and
the eventual results are not good (they don't work very well.)   Similarly,
we can subvert the process and create a feeling of happiness directly by
technical means, but this too is not an an intrinsic good, only a subjective
one of limited context, and obviously not something that promotes growth of
what works over increasing scope.

When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more
fundamental truth, that all life involves gradients that must be
continuously overcome.  It would be a misunderstanding to think one could
eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to
acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering from the
internal model while continuing to function in the world.

I think we can agree that being blissfully incapacitated is not morally
superior to striving (and therefore tolerating some suffering) to promote
ones values.

<snip>


> I expect that you have already thought this through in some
> > depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression
> > that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state
> > of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or
> > that suffering is intrinsically bad.
>
> Au contraire!  As opposed to the default (say vacuum) I heartily
> approve of any kind of benefit, including drug induced states of
> blissful incapacitation. I even approve of those states relative
> to states of unrelieved misery. And, as always "intrinsically
> good" means merely "I approve".



"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean--nether more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master--that's
all."

- Jef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060528/13240a9d/attachment.html>