you will not be harmed physically or mentally; you will simply experience excruciating pain
That's not possible. A full week of unending pain beyond extreme thresholds will leave you with serious PTSD. If you get Obliviated afterwards, that will only get you more screwed up, with persistent anxiety for no discernible reason.
That might be true in reality but in the hypothetical for omega to completely erase the event from both your conscious and subconscience
Language exists only on the surface of our consciousness. The great human struggles are played out in silence and in the ability to express oneself.
according to this website (http://ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/viewpoint/article_876e97ba-1aff-11e2-9a10-0019bb2963f4.html) it is part of 'aphorisms for leo baeck' (which I think is printed in 'ideas and opinions' but I don't have access to the book right now to check)
Thank you for finding the source (I read it in a book and was to lazy to fact check it).
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Why decline another Omega thought experiment? Because they usually amount to no more than putting a thumb on one side of the scales and saying, "Look, this pan goes down!"
Why decline the offer of a wonderful dream? Because it's a dream, not reality.
Yes but as stated above if there is superintelligent being capable of making perfect stimulations of reality than the Copernican Principle states that the probability of our "reality" not being a stimulation is extremely low If thats the case it would be obvious to choose Option 1, it being the stimulation that yields you the most utility
Making the assumption that since #2 comes with 'No strings attached' it is implying safety measures such as 'The answer does not involve the delivery of a star sized super computer that kills you with it's gravity well' since that feels like a string, and #1 does not have such safety measures (implying you have infinite utility because you have been turned into a paperclipper in simulated paperclippium is an interpretation), I find myself trying to ponder ways of getting the idealized results of #1 with the safety measures of #2, such as
"If you were willing to answer an unlimited number of questions, and I asked you all the questions I could think of, What are all question answer pairs where I would consider any set of those question answer pairs a net gain in utility, answered in order from highest net gain of utility to smallest net gain of utility?"
Keeping in mind that the questions such as the below would be part of the hilariously meta above question:
"Exactly, in full detail without compression and to the full extent of time, what would all of my current and potentially new senses experience like if I took the simulation in Option 1?"
It was simply an idea that I found interesting that I wanted to put into writing. Thank you for reading.
This was an interesting idea to read! (Even if I don't think my interpretation was what you had in mind.) Thank you for writing!
Interesting interpretation of my scenario. I don't know about other people but I personally wouldn't mind being a paperclip in paperclippium if meant realizing infinite utility potential (assuming paperclips are conscious and have sensory experience of course).
Keeping in mind that the questions such as the below would be part of the hilariously meta above question:
"Exactly, in full detail without compression and to the full extent of time, what would all of my current and potentially new senses experience like if I took the simulation in Option 1?"
As for this question, that is pretty ingenious but avoiding the conflict of my scenario entirely! No need to undermine my thought experiment unneedlessly! :) Anyway thanks for the nice comment.
A proponent might argue: 'the current simulation is a hopeless case, why stay?' And a proponent might counter: ''you run away from responsibilities'
Note that this is nearly isomorphic to the standard moral question of emigration, once you drop the no-longer useful qualifier "simulation". Is it immoral and unpatriotic to leave your home country and try your luck elsewhere? (Provided you cannot influence your former reality once you leave.)
That's not quite the question I am trying to convey with my conundrum. What I wanted Option 1 and Option 2 to represent is a hypothetical conflict in which you must choose between maximizing your utility potential at the cost of living in simulation or maximizing your knowledge of the truth in this reality. My point with in sharing this scenario did not have anything to do with the probability of such a scenario occurring. Now, everybody is free to interpret my scenario any way they like but I just wanted to explain what I had in mind. Thank you for your criticism and ideas. By the way.
You mean never really change your mind? Sounds kinda dumb...
If the last half had said "own reason or common sense" all would be fine, I think.
I interpreted it to mean not to believe information simply because you hold the source of the information in high regard. It is very possible to change your mind and keep within your own reason and common sense.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Could you give this some more context? My reaction was to downvote.
The word "only" gives me vibes like "language exerts a trivial or insignificant influence on our consciousness". I don't know any of Kroetz's plays, but given that he is a playwright I feel like I'm getting the wrong vibe.
My interpretation of the quote was not that language exerts a trivial influence on our consciousness but that language is an imperfect form of communication.