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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---