<DIV>Hi Anders,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anders writes:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>..."If they [ pleasure and suffering ] are important because they are subjective states of attraction/repulsion, then again it begs the question why we would aim for a world where we follow our<BR>subjective attractions and lack any repulsions."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't have any problems with a world with repulsions. If a free and unmolested conscious being derives pleasure from *causing itself* to suffer, that's perfectly fine with me. I wish him well. But I have a major problem when one conscious being tries to impose agreeable suffering on another *unwilling* conscious being.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anders writes:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Again, why is the potential important? There is undeveloped potential for<BR>great art in blocks of marble, but I don't think it is a crime that<BR>artists don't free it as much as they can."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But blocks of marble aren't conscious, and thus have no rights. Again, consistent with my beliefs, no person should be forced to be kind and helpful if they don't want to, by uplifting an animal for example, but they should be prevented from severely violating the consciousness of that animal (as can be agreed upon by a majority of conscious beings). IOW, it should not be a crime to choose not to help the animal, that should be a matter of personal judgment.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anders writes:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"My point was that starting from physics and empirical observations we can<BR>rationally construct ethical systems that work practically. Basing<BR>morality on non-physics means basing it on non-reality. (It should be<BR>noted that I regard logical reasoning and concepts as being physical<BR>processes, rather than some kind of platonic abstractions. They are as<BR>real as language and culture, patterns embedded in
our physical neural<BR>substrate)."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah, I can go with that. But you were entertaining the idea of a "might makes right" Universe that was basically devoid of any agreed upon ethical system, and that's why I disagreed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anders writes:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Because the natural power distribution would be highly uneven? Assuming<BR>this is true, it does not follow that it would be rational for the most<BR>powerful entities to use their powers in a might makes right fashion. It<BR>might be possible, it might be tempting, but it might not be a logical<BR>necessity. I think a lot of game theory and economics actually suggests<BR>the reverse. But this is always going to be scenario-dependent."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, I was basing my disagreement with you on your hypothetical "might makes right" Universe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Wishes,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jeffrey
Herrlich<BR><BR></DIV> <DIV><B><I>Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>A B wrote:<BR>> I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that<BR>> it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most<BR>> beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through<BR>> consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose<BR>> to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in<BR>> my book.<BR><BR>Well, what is so important about pleasure and suffering then? If we say<BR>they are important because we have evolved that way, and that pleasure and<BR>suffering are signals about imminent potential or risk for our fitness,<BR>then it seems that we should try to maximize fitness instead of<BR>consciousness or pleasure, or minimizing pain. If
they are important<BR>because they are subjective states of attraction/repulsion, then again it<BR>begs the question why we would aim for a world where we follow our<BR>subjective attractions and lack any repulsions.<BR><BR>I'm not denying that pleasure is a good thing, it is just that I have so<BR>far never seen a really convincing justification of it.<BR><BR>> Another issue that's going to throw a wrench into<BR>> the engine, is that before too long we will be able to technologically<BR>> uplift the original non-rational beings to super-rational levels - the<BR>> undeveloped *potential* of a conscious being will also become a major<BR>> ethical issue.<BR><BR>Again, why is the potential important? There is undeveloped potential for<BR>great art in blocks of marble, but I don't think it is a crime that<BR>artists don't free it as much as they can.<BR><BR>> "I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't<BR>> really become unjust
in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as<BR>> the underlying basis for morality."...<BR>><BR>> I think you can be assured of that outcome. Just take a quick survey of<BR>> what physics/Darwinian selection has given us so far - an extremely<BR>> top-heavy ratio of total suffering : to total pleasure.<BR><BR>Acknowledging hydrodynamics as the basis for your engineering project<BR>doesn't mean that you have to make it behave like water does in nature. A<BR>computer built by fluidistors is utterly un-lakelike but yet based on the<BR>same principles and material.<BR><BR>My point was that starting from physics and empirical observations we can<BR>rationally construct ethical systems that work practically. Basing<BR>morality on non-physics means basing it on non-reality. (It should be<BR>noted that I regard logical reasoning and concepts as being physical<BR>processes, rather than some kind of platonic abstractions. They are as<BR>real as language and
culture, patterns embedded in our physical neural<BR>substrate).<BR><BR>> "All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world<BR>> would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by<BR>> resisting the strong<BR>> or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would<BR>> irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc)."<BR>><BR>> That strategy might have worked in 16th century Earth, for example. But<BR>> in the age of exponential recursive self-improvement (and other rapid<BR>> bootstrapping techniques), methinks it ain't gonna happen.<BR><BR>Because the natural power distribution would be highly uneven? Assuming<BR>this is true, it does not follow that it would be rational for the most<BR>powerful entities to use their powers in a might makes right fashion. It<BR>might be possible, it might be tempting, but it might not be a logical<BR>necessity. I think a lot of game theory and
economics actually suggests<BR>the reverse. But this is always going to be scenario-dependent.<BR><BR>-- <BR>Anders Sandberg,<BR>Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics<BR>Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University<BR><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>Get your own <a href=" http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43290/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains"
>web address for just $1.99/1st yr</a>. We'll help. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/"
>Yahoo! Small Business</a>.