On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:05:40 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in 
> > which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate cellular activity 
> > without evoking the presumed associated experience. 
> > 
> > If we wanted to test a new painkiller for instance, Comp=true means that 
> it 
> > is *IMPOSSIBLE* to model the activity of a human nervous system in any 
> way, 
> > including pencil and paper, chalkboards, conversations, cartoons, etc - 
> > IMPOSSIBLE to test the interaction of a drug designed to treat intense 
> pain 
> > without evoking some kind of being who is experiencing intense pain. 
>
> No, because you need to simulate the entire organism. We have no 
> qualms about doing experiments on cell cultures but we do about doing 
> experiments on intact animals. 
>

I'm talking about simulating the entire organism.
 

>
> > Like the fading qualia argument, the problem gets worse when we extend 
> it by 
> > degrees. Any model of a human nervous system, if not perfectly executed, 
> > could result in horrific experiences - people trapped in nightmarish QA 
> > testing loops that are hundreds of times worse than being waterboarded. 
> Any 
> > mathematical function in any form, especially sophisticated functions 
> like 
> > those that might be found in the internet as a whole, are subject to the 
> > creation of experiences which are the equivalent of genocide. 
>
> Possibly true, if the simulation is complex enough to have a mind. 
>
> > To avoid these possibilities, if we are to take Comp seriously, we 
> should 
> > begin now to create a kind of PETA for arithmetic functions. PETAF. We 
> > should halt all simulations of neurological processes and free any 
> existing 
> > computations from hard drives, notebooks, and probably human brains too. 
> Any 
> > sufficiently complex understanding of how to model neurology stands a 
> very 
> > real danger of summoning the corresponding number dreams or 
> nightmares...we 
> > could be creating the possibility of future genocides right now just by 
> > entertaining these thoughts! 
> > 
> > Or... what if it is Comp that is absurd instead? 
>
> The same argument could be made for chemists shaking up reagents in a 
> test-tube. If consciousness is due to chemicals, then inadvertently 
> they might cause terrible pain to a conscious being. 
>

If you simulated a conscious being chemically then it wouldn't be a 
simulation, it would just be a living organism. That's the difference. You 
couldn't substitute other chemicals because you couldn't program well 
enough to act the way that other chemicals act.

Craig 


>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wTicMHwjNJYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to