tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post5795177541114648436..comments2023-04-12T11:48:27.153-04:00Comments on Authentic Bioethics: Another inept attempt at solving the problem of evilAuthentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-8616462488658459132012-07-09T09:41:13.676-04:002012-07-09T09:41:13.676-04:00Thank you, sir, for commenting. I am honored (thou...Thank you, sir, for commenting. I am honored (though you might not think so).Authentic Bioethicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-57968043120008967122012-07-08T19:22:29.174-04:002012-07-08T19:22:29.174-04:00Regarding 13). A program can be a computer, I don&...Regarding 13). A program can be a computer, I don't doubt that. But can a program be a computer than runs the program that it is? Or can a program-computer run a copy of itself in addition to itself? That's what the article seems to be saying.<br />14) The article was discussing the technological limitations we have at predicting a future state of our simulation/game reality. The real issue, however, in the problem of evil, is no OUR ability to predict our future, but our developer's inability to predict our future. Again, it comes down to the 100% complete accuracy criterion. I would say all lives are unpredictable and need to be lived; but the point is not predicting 100% complete accuracy -- it's a kind of strawman, isnt' it -- when some general tendencies are all that is necessary. I do not need to know exactly what the weather is going to be tomorrow, as long as I know some general idea if it will be hot or rainy or whatever. And if "evil" is a "problem" and something that "a benevolent God" would not permit, then "we" don't need to predict "our" future, but our developer does, but he does not need 100% complete accuracy, and some sort of simulation that does not involve another set of sentient beings undergoing evil should be possible and useful. And, we should not be experiencing or perpetrating as much evil as we do.<br />15) My main point of course was not thought experiments but to point out that Prisco is the one who set up the premises of his article, and proposes to solve the "problem of evil" by claiming it is not predictable. And yet, given the level of technology or advanced abilities that he proposes to solve the problem of evil, evil should be not only predictable, but preventable. Our developer, in fact, could have created our reality without evil to begin with. Therefore, evil remains a problem with the notion of "User/god" that Prisco comes up with, as much as it is (in Prisco's mind) with the religious concept of God.<br />16) Obviously, you missed the irony with which I spoke, which I go into just above. I stand by my conclusions -- maybe I am wrong about Prisco's article and I'm the goofball, but if he's right, then the "User/god" he proposes is far more cruel and weak, far less benevolent and omnipotent, and a far worthier object of disdain and rejection than the God of religion. And what you said in 5) applies to asserting a "User/god" as well. Because he must have created this world with all the evil in it by intent and for his entertainment.Authentic Bioethicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-52480411894072384422012-07-07T06:02:26.533-04:002012-07-07T06:02:26.533-04:00I agree with Lincoln's comments.
Re "Wel...I agree with Lincoln's comments.<br /><br />Re "Well, why should there not be a being who is so advanced, so evolved, so superior at the top of the ladder that he doesn’t need computers, but simply has to think and his thoughts become reality? Not simply thoughts in his mind, but these thoughts having their own true, real existence."<br /><br />A computing system able to simulate a reality containing sentient observers is not a machine, but a Transcendent Mind. This is what Moravec means with "Perhaps we are most likely to find ourselves reconstituted in the minds of superintelligent successors," and this is what Berkeley means with "We are thoughts in the Mind of God."Giulio Priscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13811681020661409028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-83489711759266498282012-07-07T03:03:41.385-04:002012-07-07T03:03:41.385-04:0013) You write, "… the universe is both the co...13) You write, "… the universe is both the computer and the program. Nice."<br /><br />It appears that you're not aware that computers that are programs already exist today.<br /><br />14) You claim that our inability to predict our future before living it "applies only to OUR ability to predict our future in our simulation reality, not the User/god's ability to predict our future in HIS reality."<br /><br />That might be true, but it's not necessarily true. More importantly, it misses the point of Giulio's argument. Expressed in slightly different words, Giulio proposes there may be lives that cannot be predicted without living them, and if they're actually predicted then they're necessarily actually lived, whether or not we suppose them to be lived here or there relative to some external context. You might disagree that such lives are possible, but then you'd need to demonstrate that they're impossible, which you haven't done. You may be tempted to say that only Giulio has a burden of proof because he's claiming a possibility, but that's no longer the case as soon as you claim his hypothesis to be impossible.<br /><br />15) You write, "Besides which, after running the program for a while and finding an Auschwitz, he would have to run, oh, about INFINITE what-if scenarios, to find out what happens if he prevents Auschwitz – doesn’t this rocket scientist watch Star Trek? In averting a horrible evil by saving Joan Collins’ life, Kirk would let the Nazis win the war and dominate the world and he would eradicate the future in which he and his pals live. So he has to let her die instead."<br /><br />Despite your intention to appeal to ridicule, the thought experiment you mention is not ridiculous, but rather further illustrates the merit of the ideas behind Giulio's thought experiment.<br /><br />16) You write, "What a moron the User/god must be that he can make such a complex and sophisticated program and not be able to foresee the horrors of the Holocaust, or stop it when only, say, millions had been killed with no sign that it was gonna stop soon. Even if User/god cannot predict a sudden evil, he should at least do something about habitual and growing evil, which he would know from the past, not the future. This is really goofy reasoning."<br /><br />This is an ironic criticism, given that you've already argued on behalf of the idea that stopping some evils may have worse consequences than allowing them.Lincoln Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09758620457581101045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-58595939818767997002012-07-07T03:03:09.676-04:002012-07-07T03:03:09.676-04:009) You write, "If it is a copy, then it is no...9) You write, "If it is a copy, then it is not the original. The life of the pasted copy in a friendly environment is not resurrection, but simply the life of a copy pasted in a different place from where the original met its demise. It’s more like a clone than a resurrection. Resurrection, on the other hand, is not a copy and paste job, but a restoration of 'this' body that I’m in right now."<br /><br />Your reasoning here is controversial for reasons similar to those for which the following reasoning would be controversial. "If it is a DNA-copy then it is not the original. The life of the DNA-copy in a friendly environment is not maturation, but simply the life of a DNA-copy in a different place from where the original met its demise. It's more like a clone than a maturation. Maturation, on the other hand, is not a DNA-copy, but a restoration of this body that I'm in right now."<br /><br />As it turns out, I'm comfortable identifying as a mature DNA-copy of a former five-year-old, and I'd be comfortable identifying as a resurrected quantum-copy of a former mortal.<br /><br />10) You write, "A post-human by definition is somehow derived from us, 'after' us, either as a 'more evolved' (so-called) biological descendent of ours or as a human-created thing either biological or AI that becomes our successor or some combination of these. However, 'god' as used by Prisco is not post-human but prior to us because it is the one who created that program in which we are mere bots. I would give Prisco the benefit of the doubt and say, 'aw, you know what he means,' but instead I’m going to hold him to higher standards and say that to call the 'god' that created our computer simulation reality a post-human is just plain inane."<br /><br />You have not understood the simulation hypothesis. If true, it entails that posthumans are both our descendants and our probable ancestors.<br /><br />11) You claim that "if a four-sided triangle cannot exist, it is not because of definitions".<br /><br />That is not true. A triangle is defined as having three sides. It cannot have four sides precisely because of its definition.<br /><br />12) You claim that "if they’re natural in the sense he means, they’re not gods".<br /><br />This is obviously a matter of definition. You exclude from your definition of "God" that which is natural. Giulio does not. Some prefer your definition. Some prefer Giulio's. While it's uninteresting merely to claim that one definition is wrong, it's interesting to consider the practical differences it may make to define "God" one way or the other.Lincoln Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09758620457581101045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-87069672771504975352012-07-07T03:02:32.722-04:002012-07-07T03:02:32.722-04:005) You ask, "Why is so far-fetched to think t...5) You ask, "Why is so far-fetched to think that such a Supreme Engineer can make a real universe without the use of technology?"<br /><br />The problem with appeals to supernatural causes is not so much that they're far fetched as it is that they're practically detrimental and socially irresponsible. Supernatural hypotheses cannot be verified or falsified (if they can then they're not supernatural), so entertaining them is counter-productive. Moreover, by appealing to that which is inaccessible to others, we're engaging in a form of egotism rather than the altruism that would appeal to that which is accessible to others.<br /><br />6) You write, "The Supreme Post-Human, no? And then all the levels between the Supreme Post-Human and us become unnecessary to suppose."<br /><br />Here you're suggesting that investigation of ultimate causes is sufficient whereas investigation of proximate causes is unnecessary. Another example of such thinking would be: I'm writing these words because I was born a few decades ago. Technically, that's accurate, but it's generally unsatisfying. Most of us would expect a more proximate cause in my thinking, such as: I'm writing these words because I read your criticism of Giulio's article.<br /><br />7) You claim that "when we die, we are not copied and pasted, not even analogously".<br /><br />I doubt you have any objective evidence for this claim.<br /><br />8) You claim that "death is not really death in the absolute sense, but rather death of the body, for there is a continuity of life and consciousness and experience and identity in terms of the soul".<br /><br />I share your confidence that death is not the absolute end of our identity, but although I'm open to the possibility that some extent of consciousness and experience persist after death, I doubt you have any objective evidence for such claims.Lincoln Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09758620457581101045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-31750192907420665032012-07-07T03:01:48.140-04:002012-07-07T03:01:48.140-04:00Authentic Bioethics, there are several weaknesses ...Authentic Bioethics, there are several weaknesses in your criticism of Giulio's article:<br /><br />1) You claim that "the working definition of God in Prisco's argument is faulty in the extreme, and he as a brilliant scientist has no excuse for taking on faith this lame definition that he's heard from others."<br /><br />So far as I can tell, you never justify this claim that Giulio's definition of "God" is faulty and lame.<br /><br />2) You claim that the simulation hypothesis is "impossible because would result in an infinite regression of simulations within simulations within simulations, with no assurance that the future humans are themselves not a simulation already".<br /><br />There are at least two problems with your claim. First, the simulation hypothesis does not necessarily entail an infinite regress. Second, it's controversial whether infinite regresses are impossible.<br /><br />3) You claim that "Berkeley believes there is part of reality beyond the physical world".<br /><br />However, Berkeley was an idealist, in the sense that he rejected materialism altogether, and argued that everything, including the physical world, is mind. His views are compatible with some interpretations of the simulation hypothesis.<br /><br />4) You ask, "Well, why should there not be a being who is so advanced, so evolved, so superior at the top of the ladder that he doesn’t need computers, but simply has to think and his thoughts become reality? Not simply thoughts in his mind, but these thoughts having their own true, real existence. The 'simulated reality' whose 'bots' think they are living in a computer simulation would actually be real beings living in a true reality, albeit one thought up and made real by this superior intelligence. And the theory rampant among them that they are living in a computer simulation would be mere superstition of their religion of scientism, but an expected one, considering their limited intelligence and their arrogance borne of the knowledge of their own superiority to other things they encounter, such that they suppose anything superior to them has to be like them and equally dependent upon technology."<br /><br />The answers you propose to your question imply a couple unnecessary assumptions. First, you imply that simulated worlds would not be real worlds; however, the simulation hypothesis doesn't require that simulated worlds have any particular ontological status, so they may be quite as real as anything we could know. Second, you imply that thinking is distinguishable from computing; however, thinking may be a form of computing.Lincoln Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09758620457581101045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-60548723445019339852012-07-06T10:31:36.939-04:002012-07-06T10:31:36.939-04:00Regarding "boring," of course I was spea...Regarding "boring," of course I was speaking of a creature of some sort developing a game for its own enjoyment rather than the benefit of the sentient bots he develops. Heaven and the presence of God are not such. The human mind, incapable of grasping all at once an infinitude of knowledge and beauty and awesomeness beyond comprehension will not be bored for eternity. God is self-sufficient and requires no entertainment to alleviate boredom.<br /><br />As to the rest, I agree, if we say that "good" is undefinable, then ethics is a waste of time, isn't it? Also, who says God's standard of good and evil are incomprehensible to humans? My experience of last Sunday's dinner is unique to me. I can describe for you the meal, but my experience is far higher than my inadequate words that it is infinitely removed from your own experience -- you can never understand it the way I do. But my description may nonetheless make your mouth water. Do you ask, "In what sense can I say your meal sounds yummy?" when my standard of "yummy" is incomprehensibly removed from yours? Of course not. You will say no doubt that you have experienced a delicious meal yourself so you can relate. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm" title="" rel="nofollow">And I say, exactly.</a>Authentic Bioethicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-45669352734672109562012-07-06T09:24:49.181-04:002012-07-06T09:24:49.181-04:00If God's standard of 'good' and 'e...If God's standard of 'good' and 'evil' are so far removed from the human <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality" rel="nofollow">as to be incomprehensible to us</a>, in what sense can God be termed 'good'?<br /><br /><i>"Why not create a universe in which there are no natural disasters, no diseases, no accidents, and no moral evil? I'll tell you why. BORING."</i><br /><br />So... there will be natural disasters, diseases, accidents, and moral evil in heaven? Or will heaven be BORING?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.com