4 ms·

Consider full-brain simulation. Do you think that it shouldn't be afforded the same way as a flesh-and-blood human? If not, would you be ok with torturing simu

Consider full-brain simulation. Do you think that it shouldn't be afforded the same way as a flesh-and-blood human? If not, would you be ok with torturing simulated individuals to make them work? If yes, then how would you draw a line between a full-brain simulation and a "synthetic" AI?

Karunamon 3y ago
We would have God-level control over the environment and mind of a simulated individual. There would be no need for torture to make them work.
keiferski 3y ago
I don’t think full-brain simulation is possible, but if it were, I don’t think the simulation would be equivalent to the original embodied human being. A lot of ethical attitudes are dependent on the human being embodied (and thus limited by biology and physics) and not easily modifiable like a computer program. That doesn’t mean it would be okay to “torture” the simulation and I’m not sure how that would work, but at the very least it would be a different ethical situation from real humans.
- eterevsky 3y ago
  > I don’t think full-brain simulation is possible We clearly aren't close to implementing them, but why do you think they are outright impossible? Brain is a physical object. Why isn't it possible to simulate its behavior? > That doesn’t mean it would be okay to “torture” the simulation So it would mean that they are ethically significant, even if they don't have the same rights as a human being. If you agree, then would this also apply to synthetic conscious AIs? > it would be a different ethical situation from real humans. I agree. Their way of living would be very different: you can speed up or pause the simulation, fork it or archive it. Questions like "is it ok for an individual to clone themselves and then kill the copy?" don't even make sense for regular humans, but can apply to simulations. That said, if for some reason my brain gets scanned one day, I would like my virtual copy to be treated humanely.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I think the idea that the brain can be copied entirely is a false belief based on a positivistic worldview. In other words, there is a lot that we cannot know about the brain and in all likelihood are "locked out of" knowing permanently by virtue of being in the world. If this weren't the case, it would imply that we, humans, are somehow external to reality, which doesn't seem like a good argument to me. The effects of millions of years of evolution on perception are a good example. We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. So, at best, the brain simulation will just be a mediocre imitation, not a true copy. Beyond that, though, I think I just reject the notion that the brain is equivalent to identity. This idea is very traceable to European culture circa the Enlightenment, which to me indicates that it's not an accurate understanding of the human Self. This means that the Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. Side note: I'm not really sure how you're connecting this to my original comment, which was not normative in nature. I wasn't suggesting that "doing away with consciousness" was a good or correct thing, just that it will pragmatically happen. Fact-value distinction and all that.
    - eterevsky 3y ago
      I don't quite get your arguments about requiring us to be "external" to reality to be able to understand brain. First of all, I don't see why you can't study something of which you are a part of. Secondly, even if you accept this supposition, Alice is external to Bob and Bob is external to Alice, so Alice could study Bob's brain and Bob can study Alice's brain. > We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. What do you mean "we can't"? Of course we do know that "something is missing", because we can't build a good predictive theory of how consciousness work. > Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. So you consider a person with an amputated arm a different person, not just the same person, who just can't use their arm anymore?
      - 3y ago

Karunamon 3y ago

We would have God-level control over the environment and mind of a simulated individual. There would be no need for torture to make them work.

keiferski 3y ago

I don’t think full-brain simulation is possible, but if it were, I don’t think the simulation would be equivalent to the original embodied human being. A lot of ethical attitudes are dependent on the human being embodied (and thus limited by biology and physics) and not easily modifiable like a computer program. That doesn’t mean it would be okay to “torture” the simulation and I’m not sure how that would work, but at the very least it would be a different ethical situation from real humans.

eterevsky 3y ago
> I don’t think full-brain simulation is possible We clearly aren't close to implementing them, but why do you think they are outright impossible? Brain is a physical object. Why isn't it possible to simulate its behavior? > That doesn’t mean it would be okay to “torture” the simulation So it would mean that they are ethically significant, even if they don't have the same rights as a human being. If you agree, then would this also apply to synthetic conscious AIs? > it would be a different ethical situation from real humans. I agree. Their way of living would be very different: you can speed up or pause the simulation, fork it or archive it. Questions like "is it ok for an individual to clone themselves and then kill the copy?" don't even make sense for regular humans, but can apply to simulations. That said, if for some reason my brain gets scanned one day, I would like my virtual copy to be treated humanely.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I think the idea that the brain can be copied entirely is a false belief based on a positivistic worldview. In other words, there is a lot that we cannot know about the brain and in all likelihood are "locked out of" knowing permanently by virtue of being in the world. If this weren't the case, it would imply that we, humans, are somehow external to reality, which doesn't seem like a good argument to me. The effects of millions of years of evolution on perception are a good example. We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. So, at best, the brain simulation will just be a mediocre imitation, not a true copy. Beyond that, though, I think I just reject the notion that the brain is equivalent to identity. This idea is very traceable to European culture circa the Enlightenment, which to me indicates that it's not an accurate understanding of the human Self. This means that the Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. Side note: I'm not really sure how you're connecting this to my original comment, which was not normative in nature. I wasn't suggesting that "doing away with consciousness" was a good or correct thing, just that it will pragmatically happen. Fact-value distinction and all that.
  - eterevsky 3y ago
    I don't quite get your arguments about requiring us to be "external" to reality to be able to understand brain. First of all, I don't see why you can't study something of which you are a part of. Secondly, even if you accept this supposition, Alice is external to Bob and Bob is external to Alice, so Alice could study Bob's brain and Bob can study Alice's brain. > We can't perceive the "roads not taken" in terms of development, nor can we know if there is "something we're missing" in terms of understanding the brain. What do you mean "we can't"? Of course we do know that "something is missing", because we can't build a good predictive theory of how consciousness work. > Self includes the body, which implies that merely copying the brain, no matter how perfectly, is not an accurate copy. So you consider a person with an amputated arm a different person, not just the same person, who just can't use their arm anymore?
    - 3y ago