4 ms·

> ...the machine is to allow experimenters to perform experiments that are either impossible or morally unethical on biological creatures Ignoring the fact tha

> ...the machine is to allow experimenters to perform experiments that are either impossible or morally unethical on biological creatures Ignoring the fact that whether this ever happens is up for debate, why would it be moral to torture a simulated animal as long as you're not torturing a "real" one? > In a few years, suppose a research decides... You vastly overestimate what research will produce in a few years.

javert 14y ago
why would it be moral to torture a simulated animal as long as you're not torturing a "real" one? Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. This is a completely unsubstantiated assumption. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral.
  - javert 14y ago
    Not completely unsubstantiated, but I'm not going to sit here and teach philosophy (mainly because nobody would listen and I wouldn't get paid for doing it). This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral. That's like saying "God must exist, until you prove that he doesn't." In other words, on that particular point, you're the one making a positive claim.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      Not exactly. You have a particular answer to the questions What is morality, and What is moral, and have asserted those answers as true. It is not necessarily the default state of the Universe that some/all actions are immoral, or amoral -- I am contesting your assertion that this action is without moral consequence. Edit: actually, you claimed without justification to know that the action was moral. In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified.
      - javert 14y ago
        I was saying, "presume no moral consequence in a particular case until it's show otherwise," and you're saying "presume moral consequence in a particular case until it's shown otherwise." Or maybe you're saying, "don't presume either way until you have evidence." I think that at the end of the day, that third option is actually the right one. So, rather than saying, "Hey, you're the one making a positive claim," I should have just said, "Actually, here is what is right, and here's why." Of course, the "why" would be limited in scope, because I'd rather direct you to external information that I agree with than write a philosophical treatise in the comments of HN. Anyway, I guess at this point I'm talking about how to talk, which is starting to get "too meta." Forgive me. To move on to something more interesting: In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified. I basically agree with your analysis, here. But, unlikely things actually do happen. In this case, I believe they have. I have some info on my profile that will direct you to more information if you are interested.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        I'm a little confused because your original statement seems to contradict your preferences here. You originally made a claim to know what morality is (or at least, where it comes from) and what is moral, without indicating your source for this knowledge in any way. And of course, this conversation is predicated on an implied agreement that morality exists, which is not necessarily a given.
        javert 14y ago
        I don't understand where you see a contradiction, and I'm not sure what you're confused about.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. If life arrives on Earth from elsewhere, and is much more intelligent than us, let us hope they don't consider us to be dogs.
  - javert 14y ago
    Agreed. I think the same arguments that establish that humans have rights would still hold, even for the aliens. I also think that they would apply to the aliens, so that we should recognize that they have rights. But all that is just "possibly," because it's hard to speculate about a case like that.
    - mdda 14y ago
      Or it may be that when they hear us debating with each other about their ability to have 'rights', they think it's as comical as we would listening to dogs debate among themselves.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
geuis 14y ago
Your first point is valid and the answer can be debated both ways. From my point of view, scientific advancements through the centuries have come at the cost of what we consider now immoral treatment of animals and humans. I feel that we're going to see a repeat of some of this behavior with simulated entities for a while once we gain the capability. It may be accepted, and not even an issue for the public at large, until some signs are being found that the entities are conscious. Hopefully we collectively approach this area of research with the foreknowledge not to repeat previous mistakes. In the end, I feel strongly that our moral definitions will expand to include simulated entities. This is vital for the existence of AI-type minds (constructed and uploaded) to co-exist in society with flesh and blood humans. A further note to that effect is the recent movement to give sentience-rights to cetaceans and the protection that goes with it. Its encouraging to see that movement taking off, as it will bode well for our hypothetical simulated fellows in the future. To your second point, I believe you vastly under estimate the research that will be done in the next few years. There are incredible things already done in labs around the world that aren't widely viewed yet. In the next few years that research is going to start exiting the lab and start hitting the marketplace. The last 20 years of advancement are nothing compared to the next 20. We would all do well to bet on a stranger, faster future rather than one that seems like the status quo of the moment.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > To your second point, I believe you vastly under estimate the research that will be done in the next few years. Odd. As my research is in simulation using massively parallel supercomputers, I'd suggest that unless there are (secretive) private research groups out there that are way ahead of universities and have access to pflops level computing, I don't think we'll be seeing accurate simulated FMRIs any time soon.

javert 14y ago

why would it be moral to torture a simulated animal as long as you're not torturing a "real" one? Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral.

jessedhillon 14y ago
Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. This is a completely unsubstantiated assumption. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral.
- javert 14y ago
  Not completely unsubstantiated, but I'm not going to sit here and teach philosophy (mainly because nobody would listen and I wouldn't get paid for doing it). This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral. That's like saying "God must exist, until you prove that he doesn't." In other words, on that particular point, you're the one making a positive claim.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    Not exactly. You have a particular answer to the questions What is morality, and What is moral, and have asserted those answers as true. It is not necessarily the default state of the Universe that some/all actions are immoral, or amoral -- I am contesting your assertion that this action is without moral consequence. Edit: actually, you claimed without justification to know that the action was moral. In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified.
    - javert 14y ago
      I was saying, "presume no moral consequence in a particular case until it's show otherwise," and you're saying "presume moral consequence in a particular case until it's shown otherwise." Or maybe you're saying, "don't presume either way until you have evidence." I think that at the end of the day, that third option is actually the right one. So, rather than saying, "Hey, you're the one making a positive claim," I should have just said, "Actually, here is what is right, and here's why." Of course, the "why" would be limited in scope, because I'd rather direct you to external information that I agree with than write a philosophical treatise in the comments of HN. Anyway, I guess at this point I'm talking about how to talk, which is starting to get "too meta." Forgive me. To move on to something more interesting: In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified. I basically agree with your analysis, here. But, unlikely things actually do happen. In this case, I believe they have. I have some info on my profile that will direct you to more information if you are interested.
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        I'm a little confused because your original statement seems to contradict your preferences here. You originally made a claim to know what morality is (or at least, where it comes from) and what is moral, without indicating your source for this knowledge in any way. And of course, this conversation is predicated on an implied agreement that morality exists, which is not necessarily a given.
        javert 14y ago
        I don't understand where you see a contradiction, and I'm not sure what you're confused about.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
toomuchtodo 14y ago
Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. If life arrives on Earth from elsewhere, and is much more intelligent than us, let us hope they don't consider us to be dogs.
- javert 14y ago
  Agreed. I think the same arguments that establish that humans have rights would still hold, even for the aliens. I also think that they would apply to the aliens, so that we should recognize that they have rights. But all that is just "possibly," because it's hard to speculate about a case like that.
  - mdda 14y ago
    Or it may be that when they hear us debating with each other about their ability to have 'rights', they think it's as comical as we would listening to dogs debate among themselves.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

geuis 14y ago

Your first point is valid and the answer can be debated both ways. From my point of view, scientific advancements through the centuries have come at the cost of what we consider now immoral treatment of animals and humans. I feel that we're going to see a repeat of some of this behavior with simulated entities for a while once we gain the capability. It may be accepted, and not even an issue for the public at large, until some signs are being found that the entities are conscious. Hopefully we collectively approach this area of research with the foreknowledge not to repeat previous mistakes. In the end, I feel strongly that our moral definitions will expand to include simulated entities. This is vital for the existence of AI-type minds (constructed and uploaded) to co-exist in society with flesh and blood humans. A further note to that effect is the recent movement to give sentience-rights to cetaceans and the protection that goes with it. Its encouraging to see that movement taking off, as it will bode well for our hypothetical simulated fellows in the future. To your second point, I believe you vastly under estimate the research that will be done in the next few years. There are incredible things already done in labs around the world that aren't widely viewed yet. In the next few years that research is going to start exiting the lab and start hitting the marketplace. The last 20 years of advancement are nothing compared to the next 20. We would all do well to bet on a stranger, faster future rather than one that seems like the status quo of the moment.

Xcelerate 14y ago
> To your second point, I believe you vastly under estimate the research that will be done in the next few years. Odd. As my research is in simulation using massively parallel supercomputers, I'd suggest that unless there are (secretive) private research groups out there that are way ahead of universities and have access to pflops level computing, I don't think we'll be seeing accurate simulated FMRIs any time soon.