Brent Meeker wrote:
> But the hypothesis that the creators are like us is part of the
> justification for supposing they would run simulations of intelligent
> beings. If you then argue that their motivations and ethics might be alien
> to us, you've discarded any reason for supposing they would simulate us.
I'm not sure that Nick Bostrom et al actually take this view. Rather
the notion seems to be based on the assumptions that if this is a
feasible thing to do, and unless you could rule out that *some* future
civilisation would actually do it, then the huge number of 'observer
moments' thus generated would make it probable that we were in fact
living in one. I don't think there are any other assumptions about the
motivations of the simulaters.
Notwithstanding this, I'm interested that you feel that their motives
would not be alien to us. Does this mean to imply that you think that
our current societies would sanction the running of such simulations if
we could (i.e.if we had the technology right now, rather than waiting
until we had evolved into some hypothetical future civilisation)? How
would you envisage the debate developing (on the model of stem cell
research, right to life, vivisection, etc.)? I just wonder if you or
anyone else cared to speculate on the direction of moral evolution into
such hypothetical futures, not just the technological developments.
Personally, although I don't lose sleep over these issues right now,
I'm pretty clear that I would be against any such attempts at
simulating 'life', and I'm interested in how you or others might
predict how I and those with similar views would lose this debate. Or
is it more likely to be some unpoliceable underground phenomenon? Since
you have implied above that their motives should be comprehensible to
us (a point on which others seem to disagree), perhaps you might want
to comment on these aspects.
David
> David Nyman wrote:
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Perhaps it says something about the nature of the simulation's creators,
> >>but I don't see that it says anything about the probability that we are
> >>living in one.
> >
> >
> > Do you mean that if we are living in one, then the moral standards of
> > its creators are reprehensible (to our way of thinking) or at least
> > opaque?
>
> But the hypothesis that the creators are like us is part of the
> justification for supposing they would run simulations of intelligent
> beings. If you then argue that their motivations and ethics might be alien
> to us, you've discarded any reason for supposing they would simulate us.
>
> Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 08 2006 - 09:49:54 PDT