Gizmodo on mind uploading, featuring Anders Sandberg

[extherian]

I suspect this is another one of those cases where we don't disagree as much as we think we do and are actually talking past each other.

As a gay man I'm happy that you feel this way. However, moving beyond my (admittedly self-interested) emotions on the matter, the fact that you're trying to make an argument for the existence of good, evil, and morality by starting from an assumption that they exist doesn't really convince me (sorry).

It's the fact that suffering is possible at all, and that we can choose to contribute towards the suffering of others. Denying the existience of evil as a concept seems to me that you're either not acknowledging that you can harm others, or not acknowledging that this is in any way undesirable.

I would say that there are various reasons why allowing people to harm each other at will would probably result in more negative consequences than positive ones.

Replace the word 'negative' with 'evil' and you basically have the sense in which I am using the word. It goes beyond consequences, though. If a forum member began bullying and harrassing another member who wasn't very popular, you could argue that the consequences are minor enough that it doesn't really matter, since no one likes them. But most people would feel that such behaviour is wrong in and of itself.

[JohnnyYesterday]

Ethics are adaptive.

Name me a culture that has no notions of right and wrong. A culture of ethical nihilists would destroy itself in short order.

[Drashner1]

I suspect this is another one of those cases where we don't disagree as much as we think we do and are actually talking past each other.

Could be - although I haven't really been clear on just what my position on these things is (beyond that good, evil, morality, rights, etc.) beyond that they are just made up concepts used to influence people's behavior - rather like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

Let me clarify:

In my view, enlightened self-interest and cost-benefit analysis are sufficient to achieve any and all of the supposed effects of the concepts most people call 'good' and 'evil'. To use the case of seeing same-sex couples in public:

As a gay man, it is in my self-interest for homosexuality and same-sex couples to be accepted in society. Since efforts to privilege any particular group over others in terms of what behaviors they can and can't engage in tend to generate feelings of 'unfairness' and discontent (that can translate into social unrest that can end up causing me more problems than I feel like dealing with) it is also in my self-interest to support the idea that other people should also not be persecuted or bothered for their behaviors or relationships as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Taken to it's logical limit this can be summed up as 'Do what thou wilt - as long as you don't hurt anybody'. There are some nitpicks around what constitutes 'harm' and some specific situations but in general I find this a useful foundation to start from.

Speaking more broadly still, organizations and societies that are supportive of diversity and freedom of expression/action seem to generally be more peaceful, have a higher standard of living, and are generally more interesting (to me) than those that don't do these things. A side effect of such diversity being encouraged can also be a wider range of new ideas and potential solutions to problems that can improve my existence either proactively (new and better ways to do things) or after the fact (reducing or eliminating pre-existing problems).

Cost-benefit analysis comes into picture in that I deem that the benefits I receive from living in an inclusive and diverse society outweigh whatever 'costs' (negative experiences, inconveniences, etc.) that arise out of such as society. Examples of such potential costs include not being able to understand people who don't speak my language or having to extend my own principles to people I don't like or would prefer not to exist (racists, bigots, etc.).

At the end of the day, my two issues with the position it seems to me that you are taking are:

a) You are making assertions rather than arguments. You assert that something is good or evil, right or wrong, without actually attempting to prove your thesis. As such, anyone who wants to counter you can simply make a countervailing assertion without any supporting arguments, at which point the debate simply devolves to stating assertions at each other.

b) I think my approach gets me to an outcome at least as good as your approach and with less unnecessary emotion and less chance of someone being able to produce countervailing effects (Which I would consider negative) simply by asserting loudly enough.

It's the fact that suffering is possible at all, and that we can choose to contribute towards the suffering of others. Denying the existience of evil as a concept seems to me that you're either not acknowledging that you can harm others, or not acknowledging that this is in any way undesirable.

I'm quite aware that I can harm others. There was a time when I could cripple, maim, or kill others if I so chose (but that training is quite rusty now).

As to whether hurting others is undesirable - as a general guideline I would say that it is in most social situations, up to and including large societies. But the concept of evil is irrelevant to the consideration. It's really much more a matter of enlightened self-interest and cost-benefit analysis. See above.

Replace the word 'negative' with 'evil' and you basically have the sense in which I am using the word. It goes beyond consequences, though. If a forum member began bullying and harrassing another member who wasn't very popular, you could argue that the consequences are minor enough that it doesn't really matter, since no one likes them. But most people would feel that such behaviour is wrong in and of itself.

Actually I wouldn't argue that for various reasons:

a) Part of the reason I enjoy OA so much is the high level of polite and mutually respectful conversation we have here. If someone starts bullying a member than that is going to reduce my enjoyment of the OA experience.

b) Part of the reason I enjoy OA is the great diversity of ideas that get presented here, which I believe to be at least in part due to how friendly we are - we try to make people comfortable being here. If we were to allow bullying and such, then some members would leave and other potential members would stay away and the overall quality and productivity of the OA project would drop - in turn reducing my enjoyment of the project.

c) As a member of 'the management' I am committed to upholding the policies and goals of the OA project and in the estimation of 'the management' OA works better as a friendly place for people to discuss and share ideas and build the OA setting as a group. We have seen the result of an online community that encourages (or at least allows) trolling and abuse of individual members and allows things to devolve into never ending flamewars and we both don't like it and don't see it as being conducive to the ongoing development of the OA project. As such we manage the forums accordingly. Allowing someone to be bullied here would go against all of that and therefore I wouldn't do it regardless of what I might personally think of the individual in question.

Again, no need to invoke issues of good, evil, right, wrong, or morality. My perception of my self-interest and cost-benefit analysis are sufficient.

Hope this better explains my position,

Todd

[extherian]

In that case, we really don't have much to argue about...I'm not talking about good and evil as principles like the laws of physics, more like the same sense in which you use the term 'self interest'.

It seems to me though that the world is full of people who believe that their 'self interest' does not correlate with those of other people, and that there is thus no reason why they shouldn't hurt them. Your pragmatic code of ethics is quite admirable, but I would hesitate to recommend it as a general principle since it could be interpreted in very selfish ways.

I agree that it would be a perfect code of ethics for a world of rational actors. I don't believe that world is the one we live in, but perhaps someday it will be.

[iancampbell]

Todd -

Being able to hurt or kill others isn't confined to those who have combat training. I remember that one meme going around when I was at university was in the chemistry department, to the effect that anyone sitting in the lunchroom/rest area in that building who couldn't blast it open or at least make it uninhabitable wasn't much of a chemist.

Consider the amusing effects of sugar and garden chemicals if mixed, or various cleaning chemicals and bleach, or carelessly (or mishandled with nefarious intent) domestic electricity.

The point is that, usually, people don't do that sort of thing. And if one is honest, the reason is probably (at least to some extent) the fear of what might happen if one is discovered.

One more thing: The notions of what is good and what is evil vary from time to time, place to place and person to person. Often, this is connected to religion. The old Inquisition mostly thought they were doing good. There are some places in the world where it is considered a good thing to throw homosexuals off tall buildings, others where people think it's OK to kill unborn babies just before term. And, of course, some people think that detonating a high-explosive belt full of ball bearings, worn by them, in the middle of a large crowd will send them straight to Paradise. Others disagree.

Humans aren't rational actors, and the world is by no means perfect. But I don't think that a world where everyone acted according to pure logic, rationality and self-interest would be very pleasant - at all.

Now for the really big question, going back to OA: Will the various grades of transapient have emotions? And further, will those emotions bear any resemblance to those of humans or will said emotions be as impossible to understand as their thought processes?

[Drashner1]

In that case, we really don't have much to argue about...I'm not talking about good and evil as principles like the laws of physics, more like the same sense in which you use the term 'self interest'.

It seems to me though that the world is full of people who believe that their 'self interest' does not correlate with those of other people, and that there is thus no reason why they shouldn't hurt them. Your pragmatic code of ethics is quite admirable, but I would hesitate to recommend it as a general principle since it could be interpreted in very selfish ways.

I agree that it would be a perfect code of ethics for a world of rational actors. I don't believe that world is the one we live in, but perhaps someday it will be.

Possibly. To all this, I would point out that the same issues can be raised (with documented proof no less) in relation to the concepts of good/evil/right/wrong/morality. Those concepts have been around in one form or another for most (perhaps all) of human history - and they don't seem to have done much to restrain people who are inclined to behave badly from doing so. Perhaps a change is in order?

Coming at this from another direction, I could argue that that's where the 'enlightened' part of 'enlightened self-interest' comes in. In this context I define it as looking at the wider picture, not just one's immediate perception of self-interest or selfishness.

Todd

[Drashner1]

Todd -

Being able to hurt or kill others isn't confined to those who have combat training. I remember that one meme going around when I was at university was in the chemistry department, to the effect that anyone sitting in the lunchroom/rest area in that building who couldn't blast it open or at least make it uninhabitable wasn't much of a chemist.

Consider the amusing effects of sugar and garden chemicals if mixed, or various cleaning chemicals and bleach, or carelessly (or mishandled with nefarious intent) domestic electricity.

The point is that, usually, people don't do that sort of thing. And if one is honest, the reason is probably (at least to some extent) the fear of what might happen if one is discovered.

One more thing: The notions of what is good and what is evil vary from time to time, place to place and person to person. Often, this is connected to religion. The old Inquisition mostly thought they were doing good. There are some places in the world where it is considered a good thing to throw homosexuals off tall buildings, others where people think it's OK to kill unborn babies just before term. And, of course, some people think that detonating a high-explosive belt full of ball bearings, worn by them, in the middle of a large crowd will send them straight to Paradise. Others disagree.

Humans aren't rational actors, and the world is by no means perfect. But I don't think that a world where everyone acted according to pure logic, rationality and self-interest would be very pleasant - at all.

I'm aware of most of the things you've mentioned here, but I'm afraid I'm not really seeing the connection to the discussion that was going on. It mostly seems to be a build up to you saying you disagree with/don't like something I've said, but I'm not entirely sure what that something is, why it bothers you, or what sort of response you're expecting me to give. Can you clarify, please?

Now for the really big question, going back to OA: Will the various grades of transapient have emotions? And further, will those emotions bear any resemblance to those of humans or will said emotions be as impossible to understand as their thought processes?

Based on various stories set in the OA universe, the transapients are possessed of a range of emotions, some of them comprehensible to humans to at least some degree, others totally alien and beyond our comprehension. Given their nature, we may presume that they can control these emotions to a high, possibly total, degree, although they may not always choose to do so.

Also, given their nature, it is possible that any and all human level encounters with what appear to be transapient emotions may in fact just be examples of transapient manipulation of lower minds - meaning that the apparent emotions displayed or discussed by the transapient may be entirely made up or have no connection to what (if anything) the transapient is actually feeling.

However, since it is pretty much impossible for a lower S-level to catch a higher S-level in a lie if the higher S-level actually cares about the matter to any degree, we might as well assume that the appearance of transapient emotions is genuine, barring definitive proof or strong indicators (such as statements by another trusted transapient of equal or higher S-level) to the contrary.

It should also be noted that the emotions transapients appear to display could be only a small fraction of what they are actually feeling or only the parts that we can understand. Given the size and multi-tasking abilities of their minds it's entirely possible they could feel thousands to trillions of emotions all at the same time and that the majority of these could be of a nature that we can no more properly comprehend than we can visualize a 10 dimensional solid.

It's also possible that transapients experience...states of being...that don't correspond to any sort of mental activity or emotion or experience that humans are capable of demonstrating/experiencing. And that there could be different levels and types of these at different S-levels. So the...state of being...of an S4 could be just as incomprehensible to S1-S3 minds as they are to S0 minds.

My 2c worth,

Todd

[iancampbell]

Todd -

You have said that diversity in society is a good thing. Well, up to a point it is. However, to take a real-world example diversity is downright dangerous - if it includes those who not only don't believe in diversity at all (particularly in religious beliefs, but also to some extent in political beliefs) but are prepared, indeed eager, to commit violence in the service of their beliefs.

Having too much diversity in Western society leads to Antifa thugs wrecking entire neighbourhoods and terrorists blowing themselves up in pop concerts. And also to similar terrorists blowing up runners in public marathons.

Diversity = good. Allowing violent lunatics free rein to proselytise = bad. Expecting people to tolerate those who don't believe in tolerance = bad.

[Drashner1]

Todd -

You have said that diversity in society is a good thing. Well, up to a point it is. However, to take a real-world example diversity is downright dangerous - if it includes those who not only don't believe in diversity at all (particularly in religious beliefs, but also to some extent in political beliefs) but are prepared, indeed eager, to commit violence in the service of their beliefs.

Having too much diversity in Western society leads to Antifa thugs wrecking entire neighbourhoods and terrorists blowing themselves up in pop concerts. And also to similar terrorists blowing up runners in public marathons.

Diversity = good. Allowing violent lunatics free rein to proselytise = bad. Expecting people to tolerate those who don't believe in tolerance = bad.

Again, this seems to be a series of assertions without a point. The closest I can come to tying it to anything I've said is that I stated that 'Do as thou wilt - as long as you don't hurt anybody' is a core element of my beliefs. Note the 'as long as you don't hurt anybody' bit which would cover most of the issues you raise here.

I am getting a sense that you want to have some kind of discussion with me that is outside the context of the OA community. If that's the case, feel free to PM me and we can continue this offlist.

Otherwise, I would suggest that this aspect of the thread seems to have run its course and we should either get back to discussing mind uploading, or transapient emotions and related, or move on to other more productive things.

Todd

[iancampbell]

Todd - Yes, indeed, back to mind uploading. (Your beliefs seem to be rather close to Wiccan.) Consider a thought experiment:

Assume, for the moment, that it is possible to create a piece of (no doubt extremely complex) highly miniaturised technology that responds in all ways, and to all inputs, the same as a neuron. Further assume that these things are reasonably easy to make in extremely large numbers - probably by some method involving nanotechnology. Further assume that the same can be done for all the other types of brain cell.

Now: Start replacing a human brain with these things, gradually - maybe 0.5% of total brain cell numbers per day, each artificial neuron to be put in exactly the same place as the real one you're replacing.

At what point, if at all, does the resultant machine/biological hybrid brain become a machine rather than alive? And once done, have you killed the human the brain is in, replacing xem with a cleverly-programmed robot? My submission is at no point, and no.

Further, what happens if the new brain has been created all in one go using data from the meat brain to make its detailed structure? Does that change anything?