People do all sorts of sloppy reasoning; everyday logic also arrives at both A and ~A ; any sort of fuzziness leads to that. To actually be moral, it is necessary that you can't arrive at both A and ~A at will - otherwise your morality provides no constraint.

Today and yesterday I tried it essentially as Eliezer described: put a glass of water with ice cubes in the freezer to cool, prepared my syringe (bought to feed a dying ferret), laid on my side, and set up my camera across from my face. I turned it on, inserted the syringe, and injected 10ml of ice-water.

The result both times? Substantial vertigo within 5-10s, lasting ~5m. (No feelings of vomiting, although I ride rollercoasters for fun and have gone skydiving, so this may not generalize.) During the first minute, I reviewed my beliefs on the usefulness of modafinil, whether I should accept an O'Reilly ebook offer, and then my general beliefs of atheism/materialism/determinism/utilitarianism/left-libertarianism. I did not find anything to object to that I was not already well aware of (eg. my cost-benefit analysis for modafinil may be off by 3 hours).

I reviewed the recordings 2 hours after the second try; the recordings matched my memories, with nothing worth noting.

Simulation allows “our hypotheses to die in our stead”. Perhaps be grateful that it's not the real you that's doing the dying.

What's about moral objections to creation of multitude of agents for the purposes of evaluation?

From a strictly utilitarian perspective, would there be anything to be gained by, say, starting a campaign of assassination against executives of tobacco companies?

Well, it would be unlikely to convince people not to smoke. It would create a kooky outgroup faction, the Violent Anti-Smokers, that people would be afraid to be associated with, so people would become uncomfortable with being too vocally anti-smoking lest they be mistaken for one of Them. No such campaign is likely to be effective enough to make people unwilling to become the executive of a tobacco company to the point that positions aren't filled, they'd just ramp up security.

Also, deaths-caused isn't really the best metric for toll on human society. Cigarettes rarely do anyone in at thirty, while car accidents don't discriminate. Adjusting to life-years-lost would be a step in the right direction.

You're doing a world of good with this. People take their uneducated guesses far, far too seriously (QM and morality etc).

Well, if quantum immortality worked, so would quantum insomnia, or quantum sobriety, or the like. Being distracted in the middle of the thought - there's you that weren't distracted, why you're not always him? Or: there got to be a parallel you that via sheer chance effectively did not advance a timestep, and he's more similar to you now than the one that did.

More generally, don't take things too seriously for mere lack of a counter argument. Fringe ideas are mostly discussed by their promoters, while detractors have bigger fish to fry.