<DIV>Hi Samantha,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Samantha wrote:</DIV> <DIV>"It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to <BR>really screw up."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Then do you believe that a post-human should have the right to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life within this Universe?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Samantha:</DIV> <DIV>"Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of <BR>complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or <BR>outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than <BR>just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have <BR>argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous <BR>beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Samantha:</DIV> <DIV>"This is a straw man that was not advocated."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let me ask you a question:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Wishes,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jeffrey Herrlich <BR><BR><B><I></I></B></DIV> <DIV><B><I>Samantha Atkins <sjatkins@mac.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>On May 25, 2006, at 10:22 AM, A B wrote:<BR><BR>> Although I was completely sincere in everything I wrote in my last <BR>> post on this thread, I realize that it may have come across as <BR>> excessively morbid. I did not mean to put a damper on this <BR>> particular topic; perhaps I can rephrase my position on this.<BR>><BR>> My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose of <BR>> the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness"
to this blindly cruel <BR>> and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about bringing <BR>> universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this dead Universe, <BR>> then *what* is its purpose? Does the Singularity boil down to a <BR>> frenzied power struggle? Where the "winner" is rightfully entitled <BR>> to do *anything* ve wishes in the name of "Freedom", with zero <BR>> regard for morality? A struggle where the primary deciding factor <BR>> is purely blind luck - being at the right place at the right time? <BR>> I'm sorry, but that's a really f****d up reason for pursuing the <BR>> Singularity.<BR><BR>It is about bringing more intelligence and greater possibilities to <BR>this corner of the universe. Whether it achieves or can achieve a <BR>bunch of utopian universals or not does not gate whether it is <BR>desirable. I do not know and rather doubt whether such a list as <BR>"universal joy, love, compassion, beauty" is even well
defined much <BR>less achievable. It is not utter perfect utopia or total <BR>dystopia. The actuality is likely to be more complex and <BR>multifarious than that.<BR><BR>><BR>> If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to do <BR>> absolutely *anything*, then we should allow someone in the future <BR>> to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life, in the name <BR>> of "Freedom". Note: I am not at all advocating this action, I'm <BR>> just pointing out a glaring contradiction within this particular <BR>> philosophy.<BR><BR>It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to <BR>really screw up.<BR><BR>><BR>> What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of lower <BR>> value and importance than a "real" being? Both are comprised of <BR>> hardware and software, and they both exist at the "real" layer of <BR>> "reality". One is simply a slave and the other a master. Does a <BR>> "real"
being have some mystical birthright that gives it absolute <BR>> authority over a newly created "simulated" being? No. One being was <BR>> simply lucky (and born early) and the other being was simply very <BR>> misfortunate (and born late).<BR><BR>Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of <BR>complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or <BR>outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than <BR>just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have <BR>argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous <BR>beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on.<BR><BR>><BR>> This would basically be the same result as if today, half the <BR>> world's population rounded up the other half and proceeded to <BR>> torture them mercilessly. The difference would be that in the <BR>> future, the victims of torture could be made to never die, and <BR>> instead
endure terrible pain for all eternity (or for at least as <BR>> long as the Universe exists).<BR>><BR><BR>This is a straw man that was not advocated.<BR><BR>- samantha<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>extropy-chat mailing list<BR>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Sneak preview the <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40762/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview"> all-new Yahoo.com</a>. It's not radically different. Just radically better.