From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 21:12:18 MDT
Samantha scolds
> Lee Corbin said:
>
> <<. I propose to do away with all stupid
> creatures, and, in fact, probably most matter
> that is not itself intelligent and capable of
> getting along quite nicely without pain.>>
>
> > So all bacteria, mammals, reptiles and birds will be
> > exterminated, uploaded, uplifted?
>
> Yes, much in the way that when you built your house
> ---or hired mercenaries to do it for you---all the
> ants and bacteria living where the concrete foundation
> is got snuffed.
> You take much upon yourself from your current rather limited and puny
> understanding.
*My* puny understanding? **My** puny understanding??
Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Seriously, this is an interesting statement coming from
someone who thinks that some kind of ironclad rules need
to be created in order to avoid insults, personal attacks,
and flames.
*My* puny understanding? Well I can dish it out as well
as you can: May the fleas of a thousand camels infest
your nostril.
> > All matter should be *at least* as feeling and thoughtful
> > as your own best 10 cc's of brain tissue. And with
> > miniaturization, I'm sure that even our brains at present
> > are largely wasteful.
>
> Arbitrary.
Well, I *think* you got my point. So what is arbitrary?
The "10ccs"? Of course it's not a measurement---I was
trying to convey the idea. I do wish that there was more
substance in some of your gripes.
> > Well, what's the matter with *our* ethics, that is
> > human ethics? IMO there are very few really evil
> > people. I have never met anyone who I think would
> > not make a good God. (Yes, some people would be
> > better than others, but no one I have ever met would
> > dish out disaster and hardship the way old Jehovah
> > does.)
> >
>
> The vast majority of humans are not "evil" by the standards of the vast
> majority of humans. However, this does not mean that their ethics is ok and
> certainly does not mean that it will work perfectly well as we get greater
> abilities for good or harm. Most people are not particularly compassionate
> and believe that achieving their interests can be done at the expense of
> others and this is perfectly ok as long as one can get away with it.
Yes, I agree. I agree, that is, with what you surely
mean (far be it from me to pick at words or phrases).
It is *not* perfectly okay, but yes, of course, they
do indeed appear to think that it is, and more importantly,
behave as if they think it is.
> I have seen on this very list talk about how the first uploads
> or AIs should/would preclude others from becoming as powerful.
> In short, the old reptilian/mammal/primate power dominance
> extended straight into godhood. This assumptions have been
> made on many, many levels on this very list.
Well, I just don't understand. I do not believe that it is
only a tendency stemming from our ancient impulses. Rather,
it is a logical conclusion under some circumstances. Now,
of course, what the exact circumstances are or will be is
the subject of discussion, and you probably just disagree
with many about what those circumstances will be. But I am
sure that in *some* situations, you would find it quite
prudent to prevent another entity (e.g. smallpox) from
rising up against you, and would take preventive measures.
> I find the notion that the average Joe or Jill elevate to God powers would do
> just fine to be one of the most deeply troublesome statements I have ever
> encountered here. With great power goes great responsibility. With great
> power goes great need for wisdom.
Okay, pick someone on this list. Now imagine that they've
got all the God-technology at their personal command. Just
how bad do you think it would be? Even if it was Damien B.,
I am sure that the damage would be quite limited.
Yes, I agree that we are probably better off not having anyone,
even a saint, possess such control. But that is in my opinion
only because we are so close to obtaining individual self-
control, and so close to a Singularity (geologically speaking,
if not lifetime speaking). Can you really imagine that say
the 13th century when perhaps 60 million Chinese were slaughtered
by Genghis Khan, and innumerable people all over the world went
through the typical tribulations of semi-literate people, that
it wouldn't have been MUCH better with almost anyone you can
name?
> > Given that there exist states of matter so advanced
> > that a few cubic centimeters of it could emulate our
> > entire civilization sans the really unpleasant stuff,
> > why not convert the whole solar system to that?
>
> You mean besides the likelihood that the entire solar system is being run
> within something like that? :-)
Well, I give that scant likelihood (and have stayed out
of those debates because the probability is so elusive
even for Bayesians) to that scenario. It would be someone
cruel indeed if this were a simulation and he had God-like
powers. "If God is God, then He is not good; if God is
good, then He is not God."
> > It would be a crime in my book to leave any matter
> > whatsoever out of that equation---and that certainly
> > includes mindless trees and insects.
>
> So, presumably you include all humans who do not choose to be uploaded in the
> category of "wasted" matter that should be converted anyway?
Yes, afraid so. When we can *guarantee* to a 99.9 percent probability
that the life of an Amish farmer will go exactly the same inside
the simulation, then I say upload him and be done with it. There
are too many other non-existent entities that need those resources.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 21:20:17 MDT