4 ms·

When we learn how to keep brain in a jar, then i agree that brain is a person and we need all the normal laws. But until that the choices we have here are noth

• kbenson 8y ago
  > Btw. if you agree that brain is equivalent to a program that can run on a computer, then you should also agree that pain, infinite torture and other "hellish" things are not a big deal, they are just pointless computations. That only follows if you think that about your life right now. If you think it's not a big deal right now, then it's not a big deal if you're a brain in a jar. If it is a big deal right now, then it is a big deal if you're a brain in a jar. Pain is useful for living organisms as a variable to use in our fitness functions (minds) that allows us to avoid situations that decrease our survival rate. Ir may be mostly useless for a brain in a jar, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be ignored. One can make an argument that complete rationality should discard feelings and work only on whether something is useful or not. I think that argument is incorrect when taken to that extreme, as it looks at a shorter horizon than the evolutionary scale which has produced us, to good effect. I would argue that the social aspect of our species is what has allowed us to not only thrice, but completely dominate the environment we are in. To ignore our empathy is to ignore what has brought us to this point. We can say that a brain in a jar in pain should not be catered to because it has nothing to provide (which also might be incorrect), but by that reasoning we should also say that the person in hospice with weeks or months left to life with no relatives should not be catered to. Should we cause pain to or end the existence of each of those without any regard to their own feelings? We could just as easily use the person in hospice for testing. Amazing scientific discoveries could be unearthed. But if we agree that emotion has played a positive role in the development of the species, then "hellish" things and the avoidance of them is not pointless computation. > But until that the choices we have here are nothingness and an experiment with unknown outcome. Given this choice i don't see any experiment that is worse than the nothingness. Given the known outcome of coming back after death for an existence of even known time, say one week, where that time comprised of pain and suffering exclusively, I would opt to not have that time, thus opting for nothingness. Given an outcome I would not choose, and an outcome I would choose, it them becomes an equation of what is the likelihood of each, and how much to I want or want to avoid each. Given that the possible negative outcome is as close to the biblical interpretation of hell as I can imagine, and one of the benefits of being an atheist is not having to worry about that, I'm not in a hurry to opt into something that then provides that possibility. That's what I was getting at before.
  • chr1 8y ago
    If you take the next step from brain in a jar, to the brain on hard disk, (where there is unlimited opportunity to copy, to take snapshots and to reset the state at will) would you still think that torturing a brain is a big deal? Do you think that simply carrying out a computation can be immoral? I think no, and the difference between experimenting on a real person and a person in your simulation is that in the second case nothing would exist if you didn't spend your resources to run the simulation, (or in the original context spend resources to revive a discarded brain). > Given that the possible negative outcome is as close to the biblical interpretation of hell as I can imagine, and one of the benefits of being an atheist is not having to worry about that Interesting, i have never thought of this as a benefit, to me the hell seemed better because there you do not die, and logically have a chance to get out, because of love and forgiveness preached by some parts of the bible.
    • kbenson 8y ago
      > If you take the next step from brain in a jar, to the brain on hard disk, (where there is unlimited opportunity to copy, to take snapshots and to reset the state at will) would you still think that torturing a brain is a big deal? Yes. If something can experience pain, I think it's immoral to cause pain when it's unnecessary. If something is sentient, I think it's immoral to stop sentience without reason. > Do you think that simply carrying out a computation can be immoral? I think no, and the difference between experimenting on a real person and a person in your simulation is that in the second case nothing would exist if you didn't spend your resources to run the simulation, (or in the original context spend resources to revive a discarded brain). Yes. If you run a simulation that works on sentient AI's, then IMO mistreating them is immoral. I view them as life, and creating life comes with responsibilities. Importantly, I think this view is important otherwise morality breaks down entirely. There's a chance we're all in a simulation right now. Does that mean nothing we do to each other can be immoral? What if we could prove we were in a simulation? That that free people form moral constraints? > Interesting, i have never thought of this as a benefit, to me the hell seemed better because there you do not die, and logically have a chance to get out, because of love and forgiveness preached by some parts of the bible. I'm not a bible scholar, but to my understanding, you go to hell for "eternity". Given the mystical nature of the whole supposition, I don't think it's useful to believe it existence is correct but the unescapability is not.