3 ms·
How could this be anti-ethical? You're just running a very complex algorithm in your machine.
by lp4v4n 1mo ago
How could this be anti-ethical? You're just running a very complex algorithm in your machine.
- j16sdiz 1mo agoWhen one truly believes: 0) Subjecting fruitfly life to this kind of treatment is unethical. 1) Life is just physics in action. 2) Physics are just algorithm (or our physical world is a simulation) It is not hard to understand why they think it is unethical. My question are 1) is all life equal? 2) is all suffering unethical? 3) is this world materialistic or are there something out there? 4) should a list of items begin with 0 or 1?
- fluoridation 1mo agoIf life is physics and physics is an algorithm, it doesn't follow that an algorithm reproducing the physics of life contains life, even if we grant that it actually reproduces it completely and perfectly. That's just confusing the symbol for the thing.
- idiotsecant 1mo agoIf it reproduces it perfectly it's not a symbolic representation of the thing, it is the thing, by any definition that makes sense.
- fluoridation 1mo agoIt's not the thing, because the thing is made of substance, not electronic impulses. No matter how hard you compute, you will never compute the simulation into a real, tangible object. The simulation and the real object are extremely, obviously distinguishable, even though they're structurally analogous. If you could simulate a human perfectly, the simulated human would not be a human, it would be a simulated human. It's not a given that it would be subject to the same rules of ethics as real humans.
- peddling-brink 1mo agoYikes. So because it can’t hit you back, you’re ok with it suffering? Also relevant short story: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
- fluoridation 1mo agoI just said it's not a given. It's not immediately obvious. EDIT: I prefer SOMA's take on it.
- dainank 1mo agoI disagree. If the simulation of electronic impulses is exactly the same as what occurs 'in the substance', then merely the medium over which signals occur is different. In my eyes, whatever is experiencing these signals will experience them the same way. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175140#48177554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175140#48177554
- fluoridation 1mo agoSorry, I can't respond because I don't know which statement in particular you're disagreeing with. What I can say is that, unless you're using words in a surprising way, I agree with >If the simulation of electronic impulses is exactly the same as what occurs 'in the substance', then merely the medium over which signals occur is different. In my eyes, whatever is experiencing these signals will experience them the same way. and I don't see how it's in contradiction with anything I said.
- dainank 1mo agoSorry, this is my mistake, I misread the following statement: > If you could simulate a human perfectly, the simulated human would not be a human, it would be a simulated human. It's not a given that it would be subject to the same rules of ethics as real humans. I am glad we agree. Regarding this second statement, I also agree with you having reread it now. Even if the entity (simulated human) receiving signals is experiencing from their PoV the exact same data, from our perspective knowing this is a 'simulated human' and not a 'human' we indeed cannot assume it is subject to the same rules like you said. Apologies for misreading your initial message.
- inigyou 1mo agohttps://qntm.org/mmacevedo https://qntm.org/mmacevedo