5 ms·

It is not about optimism, my point is that pain, torture, death are bad because they deprive you of future possibilities. If you are already dead, you do not ha

by chr1 8y ago

It is not about optimism, my point is that pain, torture, death are bad because they deprive you of future possibilities. If you are already dead, you do not have any future to lose, and in that case if your torture can help others, the rational choice is to help.

kbenson 8y ago
> pain, torture, death are bad because they deprive you of future possibilities Death does. Pain and torture don't deprive you of your future. They are all about what you have to go through to get to that future, and possibly alter how you are physically and/or mentally in that future. At an extreme end of the spectrum is complete brain death, but just before that might be extreme brain damage. Would you choose a reality in which you're so mentally diminished that your existence is comprised entirely of terror and confusion? Opting into that, even the possibility of that, especially since once you're in that state, you may no longer be capable of changing your mind? Even for people that don't believe in the religious version of hell, some might consider this the closest equivalent. The question then becomes, would you subject yourself to the possibility of being in a hell equivalent for an indeterminate amount of time after your death to provide an indeterminate amount of benefit to science? > If you are already dead, you do not have any future to lose That assumption only works if you assume you can't be brought back, even as a brain in a jar. It doesn't make sense to use assumptions based on death being the ultimate end when reasoning about death not being the ultimate end. > If you are already dead, you do not have any future to lose, and in that case if your torture can help others, the rational choice is to help. By that reasoning, if there was a program where you could donate your body to science while you're still alive and they could do any tests they want, including live vivisection, would you do so? If not, why is that any different?
- chr1 8y ago
  > Death does. Pain and torture don't deprive you of your future. They take your time when you go through them, and possibly break your body in some way, which reduces the number of things you can do in the future. Of course there may be scenarios where accepting pain or death gives you some advantage, but in that case the pain is not bad! (think dying to keep your children alive, cutting your hand to not die in the desert). > It doesn't make sense to use assumptions based on death being the ultimate end when reasoning about death not being the ultimate end. My assumptions are that brain is something that can be simulated on a computer, there is no soul, and that the people who die and are buried cannot be brought back to life. So my choices are either to become brain in a jar for experiments, or feed earthworms. > By that reasoning, if there was a program where you could donate your body to science while you're still alive and they could do any tests they want No, because if i am still alive, i can do something more useful for me with my body, but when i am dead, (or at a point when i want euthanasia), i do not have any use of my body, and hell with a small chance of helping people i love is better than nothingness.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > My assumptions are that brain is something that can be simulated on a computer, there is no soul, and that the people who die and are buried cannot be brought back to life. So my choices are either to become brain in a jar for experiments, or feed earthworms. I think the same regarding the brain. My point is that we are discussing what if your donated brain is revived to the point of consciousness, but without a body, and perhaps without the experimenters realizing consciousness exists (or realizing it and not considering your consciousness worth the same consideration of a full person). When reasoning about the possibility of that scenario, which is what this thread is about, I don't think it makes sense to use assumptions about death being the ultimate end, because this is specifically about the case where that is false, because you're a brain in jar with consciousness after death. > No, because if i am still alive, i can do something more useful for me with my body Not all live people have bodies that can be used. Not all people with useless bodies are useless. Also, this reasoning leads us to having no consideration for any living beings besides those that can communicate and be of use. Is it okay to torture animals for science, if there is a way to do so without causing pain? Should we not consider the case of a brain in a jar then, and whether it feels pain? It's your choice whether you want to subject yourself to the possibility of a tortured existence after death, but I would rather have some laws in place and information on what to expect (i.e. existing cases where we have reason to believe that the regarding the legal status of after death brain testing than going into the future blind. There's a possibility of upsides (science advancement without torture, possibly life of a sort after death), but also the possibility of downsides (that life after death might be indefinite mental torture). It's not that I'm against donating my brain, it's that I'm against donating my brain given the minimal amount of information we have on outcomes, and how that relates to the extreme mngative worst case I can imagine. The question is, if we map out a matrix of possibilities with outcomes of no science advancement, science advancement, second life on one axis, and no consciousness, consciousness but not you (amnesia), your consciousness but impaied, your consciousness close to your current capabilities on the other axis, some of those paired outcomes are what I would consider completely unacceptable, and others would be absolutely wonderful, and then there's various middling levels in between. The problem is there's no idea currently what the chances of any of those are, so am I willing to gamble a completely unacceptable outcome for the chance of a wonderful outcome given no odds?

by chr1 8y ago

kbenson 8y ago

> pain, torture, death are bad because they deprive you of future possibilities Death does. Pain and torture don't deprive you of your future. They are all about what you have to go through to get to that future, and possibly alter how you are physically and/or mentally in that future. At an extreme end of the spectrum is complete brain death, but just before that might be extreme brain damage. Would you choose a reality in which you're so mentally diminished that your existence is comprised entirely of terror and confusion? Opting into that, even the possibility of that, especially since once you're in that state, you may no longer be capable of changing your mind? Even for people that don't believe in the religious version of hell, some might consider this the closest equivalent. The question then becomes, would you subject yourself to the possibility of being in a hell equivalent for an indeterminate amount of time after your death to provide an indeterminate amount of benefit to science? > If you are already dead, you do not have any future to lose That assumption only works if you assume you can't be brought back, even as a brain in a jar. It doesn't make sense to use assumptions based on death being the ultimate end when reasoning about death not being the ultimate end. > If you are already dead, you do not have any future to lose, and in that case if your torture can help others, the rational choice is to help. By that reasoning, if there was a program where you could donate your body to science while you're still alive and they could do any tests they want, including live vivisection, would you do so? If not, why is that any different?

chr1 8y ago
> Death does. Pain and torture don't deprive you of your future. They take your time when you go through them, and possibly break your body in some way, which reduces the number of things you can do in the future. Of course there may be scenarios where accepting pain or death gives you some advantage, but in that case the pain is not bad! (think dying to keep your children alive, cutting your hand to not die in the desert). > It doesn't make sense to use assumptions based on death being the ultimate end when reasoning about death not being the ultimate end. My assumptions are that brain is something that can be simulated on a computer, there is no soul, and that the people who die and are buried cannot be brought back to life. So my choices are either to become brain in a jar for experiments, or feed earthworms. > By that reasoning, if there was a program where you could donate your body to science while you're still alive and they could do any tests they want No, because if i am still alive, i can do something more useful for me with my body, but when i am dead, (or at a point when i want euthanasia), i do not have any use of my body, and hell with a small chance of helping people i love is better than nothingness.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > My assumptions are that brain is something that can be simulated on a computer, there is no soul, and that the people who die and are buried cannot be brought back to life. So my choices are either to become brain in a jar for experiments, or feed earthworms. I think the same regarding the brain. My point is that we are discussing what if your donated brain is revived to the point of consciousness, but without a body, and perhaps without the experimenters realizing consciousness exists (or realizing it and not considering your consciousness worth the same consideration of a full person). When reasoning about the possibility of that scenario, which is what this thread is about, I don't think it makes sense to use assumptions about death being the ultimate end, because this is specifically about the case where that is false, because you're a brain in jar with consciousness after death. > No, because if i am still alive, i can do something more useful for me with my body Not all live people have bodies that can be used. Not all people with useless bodies are useless. Also, this reasoning leads us to having no consideration for any living beings besides those that can communicate and be of use. Is it okay to torture animals for science, if there is a way to do so without causing pain? Should we not consider the case of a brain in a jar then, and whether it feels pain? It's your choice whether you want to subject yourself to the possibility of a tortured existence after death, but I would rather have some laws in place and information on what to expect (i.e. existing cases where we have reason to believe that the regarding the legal status of after death brain testing than going into the future blind. There's a possibility of upsides (science advancement without torture, possibly life of a sort after death), but also the possibility of downsides (that life after death might be indefinite mental torture). It's not that I'm against donating my brain, it's that I'm against donating my brain given the minimal amount of information we have on outcomes, and how that relates to the extreme mngative worst case I can imagine. The question is, if we map out a matrix of possibilities with outcomes of no science advancement, science advancement, second life on one axis, and no consciousness, consciousness but not you (amnesia), your consciousness but impaied, your consciousness close to your current capabilities on the other axis, some of those paired outcomes are what I would consider completely unacceptable, and others would be absolutely wonderful, and then there's various middling levels in between. The problem is there's no idea currently what the chances of any of those are, so am I willing to gamble a completely unacceptable outcome for the chance of a wonderful outcome given no odds?