upvote

points

by lp4v4n11 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby inigyou5 minutes ago|
next
[-]
https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
reply
upvoteby j16sdiz10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
When 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?

reply
upvoteby fluoridation9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If 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.
reply
upvoteby idiotsecant8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If it reproduces it perfectly it's not a symbolic representation of the thing, it is the thing, by any definition that makes sense.
reply
upvoteby fluoridation8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It'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.

reply
upvoteby dainank5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I 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

reply
upvoteby fluoridation5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sorry, 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.

reply
upvoteby dainank42 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Sorry, 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.

reply
upvoteby idiotsecant54 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If you could simulate a human perfectly how would it possibly not be'subject to the same rules of ethics' as humans? What you've created is a human. If a system takes the same inputs and creates the same output it's the same system on different substrate. You don't say a human stops being a human if you put them on a ventilator, do you? Part of that system is now in an external substrate. How much of the biological human can be outside the meat body before you stop recognizing them as human?
reply
upvoteby peddling-brink7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yikes. So because it can’t hit you back, you’re ok with it suffering?

Also relevant short story: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

reply
upvoteby fluoridation7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I just said it's not a given. It's not immediately obvious.

EDIT: I prefer SOMA's take on it.

reply