= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on DRAFT:Ethical Zombies - A Post On Reality-Fluid - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (116)
Perfectly so before the cakes are added.
To be clear, are you actually asserting this or merely suggesting a possible resolution to the dilemma?
So you believe that it is irrelevant whether or not Omega' (a resident of the universe running a simulation) can create things of value to you but chooses not to? You have no preference for living in a world with constant physical laws?
It's a solution, but for it to apply to others they would have to share my values. What I'm saying is that there is no intrinsic value to me to the orientations of electrons representing a number which has a transformation function which results in a number which is perfectly analogous to me, or to any other person. Other people are permitted to value the integrity of those electrical orientations representing bits as they see fit.
So you, in fact, do not value simulations of yourself? Or anyone else, for that matter?
With the caveat that I am not a simulation for the purposes if that judgement. I care only about my layer and the layers which are upstream of (simulating) me, if any.
Well, obviously this post is not aimed at you, but I must admit I am curious as to why you hold this belief. What makes "downstream" sims unworthy of ethical consideration?
Maybe I've got a different concept of 'simulation'. I consider a simulation to be fully analogous to a sufficiently well-written computer program, and I don't believe that representations of numbers are morally comparable to living creatures, even if those numbers undergo transformations completely analogous to those creatures.
Why should I care if you calculate f(x) or f'(x), where x is the representation of the current state of the universe, f() is the standard model, and f'() is the model with all the cake?
Does that stay true if those representations are implemented in a highly distributed computer made out of organic cells?
Are you trying to blur the distinction between a simulated creature and a living one, or are you postulating a living creature which is also a simulator? I don't have moral obligation regarding my inner Slytherin beyond any obligations I have regarding myself.
I'm not so much trying to blur the distinction, as I am trying to figure out what the relevant parameters are. I started with "made of organic cells" because that's often the parameter people have in mind.
Given your clarification, I take it that "living" is the parameter you have in mind, in which case I'm interested in is how you decide that something is a living system. For example, are you a living system? Can you be certain of that?
If you can't be certain, does it follow that there's a possibility that you don't in fact have a moral obligation to yourself (because you might not be the sort of thing to which you can have such obligations)?
If I am a number in a calculation, I priviledge the simulation I am in above all others. I expect residents of all other simulations to priviledge their own simulation above all others.
Being made of carbon chains isn't relevant; being made of matter instead of information or an abstraction is important, and even if there exists a reference point from which my matter is abstract information, I, the abstract information, insrinically value my flavor of abstraction more so than any other reference. (there is an instrumental value to manipulating the upstream contexts, however)