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.