undefined

points

[-]

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.

by dainank6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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

by fluoridation6 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.

by dainank1 hours 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.

by peddling-brink9 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

by fluoridation8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I just said it's not a given. It's not immediately obvious.

EDIT: I prefer SOMA's take on it.

by idiotsecant1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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?