Internet-based Life?

[JFrankA]

JFrankA,

You are kind of exaggerating what I'm saying...

That's not what I said at all. I just said that a simulation of sentient life shouldn't be created as sentient beings deserve the right to experience reality.

And when I said that, I did not mean wading through lava or what have you. I simply meant existing not in some computer generated illusion.


INRM

But that's the point: What you call "illusion" is his "reality". Just as, quite possibly what you call "reality" is his 'illusion".

It's a matter of perception. You see his reality as illusion because you've lived in this reality all your life, further, your eyes have evloved to percieve this reality visually, your lungs have evolved to get the chemical needed to keep your brain, which was also evolved to percieve and process this reality.

His reality will be a full reality to him, because he would be evolved as a being that sees his reality with whatever he would use, be able to survive in it with whatever body he would have, and percieve and process his reality with his brain.

And who's to say that he would say to you "Hey, nature must be cruel for trapping you illusion of reality"?

You are basing a judgement of cruelty on your values, your concept and your perceptions.

 

[Ikarus]

@INRM
I think JFrankA's reply is relevant to your question.

Indeed, exaggerated, to make a point, but not false.

You say it is cruel for a sentient creature to exist only in computers, because it is an illusion and not reality.

What JFrankA and others are saying, is that cyberspace is as much a reality as the reality we're living in. Or nano-reality. Or macro-reality. Or the reality at planet Mars. Certainly not an illusion. And if it is, then I challenge you to explain in the same way how our earthly existance is not an illusion.

Cyberexistance is not a reality we can easily relate to, I think. We have no idea what it is like to exist of 1s and 0s; all we know is what it feels like to be made out of water, mainly, and some carbons and a whole lot of special molecules, which make up our body cells. We can't imagine what it is like to be a single celled organism, and no matter how curious we are, we'll never ever find out. That's not cruel. It's because we evolved this way and adapted to our environment.

Ofcourse, a difference with single celled organisms is that this cyber-creature would be sentient and perhaps it evolves ideas about right and wrong, but still, I don't think the fact that it's living in a different sort of environment than us and made up of a different material makes it's existance a cruelty. It cannot be sentient if it doesn't know it's environment; that's the first thing it will need to be somewhat sentient about. And it will evolve there and adapt to "live" comfortably there. How this will happen, we can only speculate about (although it is quite pointless, as we can't know; I can even see it losing the ability to communicate with us when we contribute nothing to their survival and develop a language of itself that we can't understand.)

"Stranded" in the computers of the world, the cybercreature will be required to evolve and invent new ways to survive, and it will need to find reasons for existing, just like their original creators on planet earth.

If it isn't cruel to make sentient children, then I don't think it is cruel to make sentient computer programs... The question is ofcourse, what is the cost to us; what are the risks (if it grows out of control and takes over the internet and all that is connected to it, for example)? And how can we benefit from it?

 

[INRM]

Ikarus,

How would a simulation of reality be the same as reality? It would appear to be reality, but it's an illusion created by computers.

And I do consider it a step removed from the reality we live in. I mean under you're logic a videogame is reality...

"Stranded" in the computers of the world, the cybercreature will be required to evolve and invent new ways to survive, and it will need to find reasons for existing, just like their original creators on planet earth.

Why would you want to strand these sentient beings in a computer where they have no chance to escape even if they want to? That's like giving birth to a baby and putting it in a prison where it can't leave... for what? An evolution experiment? I think we all agree evolution exists

 

[JFrankA]

Ikarus,

How would a simulation of reality be the same as reality? It would appear to be reality, but it's an illusion created by computers.

And I do consider it a step removed from the reality we live in. I mean under you're logic a videogame is reality...

*sigh*

The point is that we - as human beings - don't LIVE in a video game, haven't evolved from a computer program to survive in that environment and our "reality" is based on what we percieve it to be.

If a being has evolved from a computer program to be sentient, he, (if these beings actually have sexes within the species), will have evolved to survive and thrive in that enviornment. It wouldn't be an illusion to him. It would be reality. Our reality would be an illusion to him.

The mistake you are making is that you are assuming your reality is the only real one.

Why would you want to strand these sentient beings in a computer where they have no chance to escape even if they want to? That's like giving birth to a baby and putting it in a prison where it can't leave... for what? An evolution experiment? I think we all agree evolution exists

We agree that evolution exists, but that isn't the point. And the beings wouldn't be trapped. They wouldn't be trapped any more than we are in this dimension. The sentient being would be evolving in the computer instead of the world. It's almost like a different dimension. Have you ever read "Flatland"? It's kind of like that.

And no, it isn't putting a baby in a prison. It's putting a new species in it's natural environment.

I didn't mean to de-rail the thread, and Ikarus' post was brilliant. And he's right. The thread is turning from the question of the whole sentient being in a computer topic into a "What is reality?" topic.

 

[Ikarus]

Ikarus,

How would a simulation of reality be the same as reality? It would appear to be reality, but it's an illusion created by computers.

And I do consider it a step removed from the reality we live in. I mean under you're logic a videogame is reality...

It would not be a simulation of [our] reality at all. That's the point I'm trying to convey. Reality and illusion are what we percieve them to be, and for that discussion, I would suggest you browse the philosophy section.

Why would you want to strand these sentient beings in a computer where they have no chance to escape even if they want to? That's like giving birth to a baby and putting it in a prison where it can't leave... for what? An evolution experiment? I think we all agree evolution exists

I disagree that it would be like that. A prison is a defined space, that restricts our physical movement, which is a great hinderance in our physical world. We need some space, although, as has been pointed out often, even we humans can't go everywhere we want. Every reality has it's restrictions.

We don't know the properties of the space we're putting the cybercreature in, but the idea started with the observation that the internet and all connected computers, form a huge virtual platform. The question is, is it enough space and randomness to have some sort of creature exist and evolve in. So what we would need to introduce, as I imagine it, is some sort of basic architecture or a script that is able to rewrite itself and reproduce and die and feed off of virtual information, or something like that, based on the principles of evolution, though the actual evolving and eventual sentience will have to occur automatically.

We know how evolution works (we think) but we don't know how it will behave in a virtual environment, so to see that could be it's purpose. But it would be an artistic endeavor, rather than a scientific one. The cruelty one could percieve there is that the creature exists solely for our curiosity. I would refute that on the basis that there are billions and billions of creatures who exist solely for our appetite.

 

[INRM]

Okay,

Hypothetically, let's say for the sake of argument (I personally don't believe this, but regardless) let's say we were in a simulation of reality, and let's say the physics of the simulation worked exactly the same way as outside the simulation (so anything that exists in the simulation could exist in real life).

Would you want to be trapped here?


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

Okay,

Hypothetically, let's say for the sake of argument (I personally don't believe this, but regardless) let's say we were in a simulation of reality, and let's say the physics of the simulation worked exactly the same way as outside the simulation (so anything that exists in the simulation could exist in real life).

Would you want to be trapped here?


INRM

Sure, why not? If the simulation worked exactly the same way as the outside the simulation, then by my perceptions, I am experiencing reality.

Hey, I wouldn't mind being "stuck" in Second Life.

But I think I partly see why we aren't seeing eye-to-eye here.

See, it seems to me that you would expect that the being living in a computer would have a reality a la "The Matrix". That is, it's a simulation of our reality put into a computer program.

But I think that if a sentient being lived in a computer, it doesn't nessacarily have to be that. He would evolve to survive the internet, no matter what it would be. To me, a sentient being would have to be able to see data, interpret what it means and what it is, able to sense viruses, bad data, secure data ports, able to travel at the speed of data, etc.

In other words, I picture this being as, not a simulation of humans, but it's own being: a being evolved to live in the environment of the internet: the data, the wires, the ports, the circuits, the harddrive, the RAM, etc, itself.

Making the being living in a simulation is one possible way of doing it, but there are more efficent, evolving-like ways.

However, for me to live in a simulation like "The Matrix" or Second Life? Or even like the one at the end of that "Dr.Who" episode? And have contact with the "non-simulated" world? Sure! And I bet you'd be surprised as to how many people would not consider that "being a prisoner".

......but that's a different topic....

 

[INRM]

Sure, why not? If the simulation worked exactly the same way as the outside the simulation, then by my perceptions, I am experiencing reality.

What about the people running the simulation? They would live outside the simulation... wouldn't their reality be more "real" than the simulation of reality?


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

What about the people running the simulation? They would live outside the simulation... wouldn't their reality be more "real" than the simulation of reality?


INRM

Not from my perception, no.

 

[INRM]

Not from my perception, no.

Okay lemme ask you this.

Question 1: How is a simulation real? Is a simulation real?

Question 2: Is it ethical to create sentient life simply for the purpose of experimentation or intellectual curiousity?


INRM

 

[JFrankA]

Okay lemme ask you this.

Question 1: How is a simulation real? Is a simulation real?

Question 2: Is it ethical to create sentient life simply for the purpose of experimentation or intellectual curiousity?


INRM

1. If I am a sentient being. If my "body" and senses are have evolved and are set in this reality to percieve my surroundings so that I can manuever, survive, thrive, learn, grow, have a family, etc, etc, etc - how the hell do I even know that it's a simulation? Therefore, that "simulation" is real.

Let me ask you are reply question: (And we are in agreement that this isn't true, but I have to ask: How do you know that this reality isn't a simulation? Now, I don't mean humans hooked up to a machine like "The Matrix", but humans who are actually part of the machine itself (think more like "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" rather than "The Matrix" ).

We are evolved, adapted, senses primed to grow, improve and precieve this reality as real.

2. Well, it would depend on how we treat the species, right? I don't see it a cruel to create a species of internet beings the body, senses and brains to survive, thrive and grow inside a reality.

Also, if I may add a personal note or two, if I were to create a species of beings inside the internet, I'd make sure I made it clear to them that I wasn't their god, just a guy who is another species who lives in a different place than they do and hope we can work together to make both of our existances better.

To me, saying to these beings that their reality isn't "real" is being cruel. I also think that it's cruel to not even create a species at all, not giving them a chance to exist and grow simply because the person who could create them won't. It takes away a possiblity of something wonderful and new to come around, and gives it no chance to even try to grow.

 

[Ikarus]

1. If I am a sentient being. If my "body" and senses are have evolved and are set in this reality to percieve my surroundings so that I can manuever, survive, thrive, learn, grow, have a family, etc, etc, etc - how the hell do I even know that it's a simulation? Therefore, that "simulation" is real.

And you forget: If the simulation happens, then the simulation is real. If I turn on the computer and play a game, then it might be a simulation and an illusion, but it IS happening. There's pixels cleverly colored to make it seem like I'm in a game world and they adapt to my fingers tapping certain keys. I'm tapping my keys in this reality and the pixels are colored in this reality. The simulation happens and is therefor as real as anything else that happens. In the physical sense, at least. I don't think there's a way to deny that.

I'd like to know what INRM's perception of "reality" is. Only then can we properly discuss how this is simulation or not. INRM, please give us your definition of reality, if you will.

As for your second question: Is it ethical to create sentient life simply for the purpose of procreation. Isn't that a selfish thing to do?
Is it ethical to massively produce sentient life for the purpose of slaughtering them a few years/weeks later and consuming them (a.k.a. livestock)?

To me, saying to these beings that their reality isn't "real" is being cruel. I also think that it's cruel to not even create a species at all, not giving them a chance to exist and grow simply because the person who could create them won't. It takes away a possiblity of something wonderful and new to come around, and gives it no chance to even try to grow.

I disagree, because, as I said earlier, we need to put our own concerns first. We need to be sure that it will be and remain a desired new element that we introduce in our midst. We have a choice now. The creation of a being is fundamentally against it's will as it has no will until it is created. So we must think about it carefully and if choose to go ahead, then we're compelled to dedicate ourselves to rooting and nurturing the new being. And if we can't do that, or the cost to our current existance will be too high, then we mustn't, no matter how wonderful and exciting a future in existance the cyberbeing might have (...eating our pc's brains, for example). This leans strongly towards the pro-choice, pro-life debate, by the way .

 

[JFrankA]

And you forget: If the simulation happens, then the simulation is real. If I turn on the computer and play a game, then it might be a simulation and an illusion, but it IS happening. There's pixels cleverly colored to make it seem like I'm in a game world and they adapt to my fingers tapping certain keys. I'm tapping my keys in this reality and the pixels are colored in this reality. The simulation happens and is therefor as real as anything else that happens. In the physical sense, at least. I don't think there's a way to deny that.

I completely agee with you there. I hadn't thought of that.

I'd like to know what INRM's perception of "reality" is. Only then can we properly discuss how this is simulation or not. INRM, please give us your definition of reality, if you will.

I would too.

As for your second question: Is it ethical to create sentient life simply for the purpose of procreation. Isn't that a selfish thing to do?
Is it ethical to massively produce sentient life for the purpose of slaughtering them a few years/weeks later and consuming them (a.k.a. livestock)?


I disagree, because, as I said earlier, we need to put our own concerns first. We need to be sure that it will be and remain a desired new element that we introduce in our midst. We have a choice now. The creation of a being is fundamentally against it's will as it has no will until it is created. So we must think about it carefully and if choose to go ahead, then we're compelled to dedicate ourselves to rooting and nurturing the new being. And if we can't do that, or the cost to our current existance will be too high, then we mustn't, no matter how wonderful and exciting a future in existance the cyberbeing might have (...eating our pc's brains, for example). This leans strongly towards the pro-choice, pro-life debate, by the way .

Again, I agree with you there, too. I was assuming optimism on that this new race of beings would be beneficial to both us and them.

 

[INRM]

I would say I define reality as what remains when you stop believing...

I'm not entirely sure if that's the best definition but it's one that I often use

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

INRM, I have to say your assertion is pretty sillly. You're assuming three things that A) a sentient being of human intelligence could ever arrise. Even billions of years of natural selection isn't a guarantee of that. B) Our reality is superior to the reality this being would evolve in, seemingly on the basis of it being a simulated reality. Even though I would argue that an illusion doesn't make something necessarily bad or inferior. C) Such a being would actually want to visit our reality. I remember reading the theories of some futurists and wondering; if I was able to upload myself into the internet and maintain my life there at an intelligence-level comparable to an AI if I would bother to maintain a physical form at all.

If I were to raise objections to such a program I would state whether it is ethical for humans to create something so brutal as natural selection and force organisms through it in the name of science. But it would be countered, even by myself, with the argument that if we held this position true we would also have to save other organisms from natural selection. So, perhaps it is morally acceptable?

 

[INRM]

1. If I am a sentient being. If my "body" and senses are have evolved and are set in this reality to percieve my surroundings so that I can manuever, survive, thrive, learn, grow, have a family, etc, etc, etc - how the hell do I even know that it's a simulation? Therefore, that "simulation" is real.

Well a simulation, let's say a videogame. Computer processes are happening of course, but what I'm seeing on the screen isn't real. I mean I play FS9 (Flight Sim 2004). Activity is going on, the screen displays all sorts of stuff, there are 3D images at work, and the monitor changes colors in pixels in given areas to produce the illusion of movement on the screen.

It doesn't change the fact that I'm actually not flying an aircraft. That is illusion.

Let me ask you are reply question: (And we are in agreement that this isn't true, but I have to ask: How do you know that this reality isn't a simulation?

I don't. However if it was, I would not want to be trapped in here.

Now, I don't mean humans hooked up to a machine like "The Matrix", but humans who are actually part of the machine itself (think more like "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" rather than "The Matrix" ).

I never actually read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I never remember anything mentioned of a simulated reality. When was that mentioned?

We are evolved, adapted, senses primed to grow, improve and precieve this reality as real.

Assuming this reality was not real, and somehow we found out it wasn't, wouldn't you feel as if you were tricked and you were trapped inside some kind of collossal illusion?

2. Well, it would depend on how we treat the species, right? I don't see it a cruel to create a species of internet beings the body, senses and brains to survive, thrive and grow inside a reality.

Why would you even want to have this issue to begin with? Why would you even want to create internet based life?

Also, if I may add a personal note or two, if I were to create a species of beings inside the internet, I'd make sure I made it clear to them that I wasn't their god, just a guy who is another species who lives in a different place than they do and hope we can work together to make both of our existances better.

I suppose that's better than claiming to be god. However, I don't know why you'd want to create a species of beings on the net? I mean with robotic technology, why not just create one on Earth?

And you forget: If the simulation happens, then the simulation is real. If I turn on the computer and play a game, then it might be a simulation and an illusion, but it IS happening. There's pixels cleverly colored to make it seem like I'm in a game world and they adapt to my fingers tapping certain keys.

Yes computer calculations are being made, yes pixels are cleverly colored to make it seem like you're in the game world. However, despite how real it seems on the screen, it is an illusion.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I play FS9 a lot. I can tell you though that as real as it seems it is an illusion.

I'm tapping my keys in this reality and the pixels are colored in this reality. The simulation happens and is therefor as real as anything else that happens. In the physical sense, at least. I don't think there's a way to deny that.

In the physical sense is largely what I'm talking about.

As for your second question: Is it ethical to create sentient life simply for the purpose of procreation. Isn't that a selfish thing to do?

Well, it's not the same as creating a being for intellectual curiousity. Additionally that sentient being is not going to grow up inside a bank of computers, it's going to grow up on Earth. It will grow up and will have desires, wants, needs of it's own. Eventually it will reach a maturity and age where it will not depend on me or it's mother, but will be able to function on its own. It will not be forever dependant on me, it will not have to live in my house forever.

Is it ethical to massively produce sentient life for the purpose of slaughtering them a few years/weeks later and consuming them (a.k.a. livestock)?

I'm truthfully not entirely fond of this process. I mean hunting somehow seems better than raising them inside a farm/factory simply for the purpose of being killed and made into steaks, ribs, hamburgers, cold-cuts, and such.

I'm not saying I'm a member of PETA or anything (I'm not), I'm not even all that big an opponent of killing animals in the wild.

I disagree, because, as I said earlier, we need to put our own concerns first. We need to be sure that it will be and remain a desired new element that we introduce in our midst.

There is a term for putting your own needs above everybody else's all the time regardless of the suffering caused by this result, you know?

We have a choice now. The creation of a being is fundamentally against it's will as it has no will until it is created. So we must think about it carefully and if choose to go ahead, then we're compelled to dedicate ourselves to rooting and nurturing the new being.

That's right. While I'm at this I'm just wondering -- with the technology to create mechanical stuff, why create life on the internet when we can just build robots?

The robot wouldn't exist inside some computer world, and would live in the same world we live in (Not that I'm all that fond of robots either)

Honestly I am curious why people go to such lengths to create artificial life. I mean we have so much of the natural kind. And it shouldn't be such a mystery why it's possible to do. So why are people going to such lengths to "prove" they can? It's already provable.

And I have a very simple explanation for why.

The human brain produces consciousness/sentience because of the electrical activity within it and it's structure. If I produced something that produced the same activity and worked on the same principle it would produce consciousness and sentience too.

I mean let's put it this way... you build a TV set. I copy the TV set, I design it the exact way you did, the exact same construction techniques, the same equipment, the same materials, and configuration. It's going to work just like yours.

Why is a brain any different?

And if we can't do that, or the cost to our current existance will be too high, then we mustn't, no matter how wonderful and exciting a future in existance the cyberbeing might have (...eating our pc's brains, for example). This leans strongly towards the pro-choice, pro-life debate, by the way .

If it would endanger our existance, or worse, life on earth, it would be irresponsible, dangerous and immoral to do so.



INRM

 

[Ikarus]

I would say I define reality as what remains when you stop believing...

I'm not entirely sure if that's the best definition but it's one that I often use

I see.

If you think belief has anything to do with reality, telling kids Santa Claus is real is just evil...

I think it is a simplistic view on reality, anyway.

That's right. While I'm at this I'm just wondering -- with the technology to create mechanical stuff, why create life on the internet when we can just build robots?

The robot wouldn't exist inside some computer world, and would live in the same world we live in (Not that I'm all that fond of robots either)

What would that robot look like and with what does it think? And how? Will it think like us?

Honestly I am curious why people go to such lengths to create artificial life. I mean we have so much of the natural kind. And it shouldn't be such a mystery why it's possible to do. So why are people going to such lengths to "prove" they can? It's already provable.

To create a being that is aware of itself and of us has massive potential. Or none. We don't know. That's the magic of invention. You start in the domain of the known and you venture into the unkown. Like at CERN. The have a couple of assumptions of what is going to happen. Something else might happen also and nothing might happen at all. We don't know yet. We know that we can contain what is happening there, and we have the means to experiment. What might happen with the cybercreature is that it destroys all our computers.. Or it finds new ways of organizing and integrating information found all over the web, like a supercrawler. It could deliver us new insights on what consciousness really is. It forces us to think about sentience and reality. I have far too little information to estimate it's potential value to our body of knowledge.

However the case, if we're ever going to create some sort of independant robots, we'll need to create a sentient brain for them first. And as has been remarked in this thread, which I agree with, if we're ever going to create digitial sentience, it will be through evolution and "natural selection", which could theoratically occur in a digital environment. Even though, at first glance, that might contrast with the process being "natural".

 

[JFrankA]

Well a simulation, let's say a videogame. Computer processes are happening of course, but what I'm seeing on the screen isn't real. I mean I play FS9 (Flight Sim 2004). Activity is going on, the screen displays all sorts of stuff, there are 3D images at work, and the monitor changes colors in pixels in given areas to produce the illusion of movement on the screen.

It doesn't change the fact that I'm actually not flying an aircraft. That is illusion.

Illusion or not it is your reality. Ask anyone who plays World of Warcraft for hours and hours. The experience that they get is a real experience to them.

But we are not talking about a human visiting a "another reality". We are talking about a being experiencing his own reality in his own world where he was evolved to survive in. Major difference.

I don't. However if it was, I would not want to be trapped in here.

How do you know that the other reality is better? Hell, what if you cannot even survive in the "real reality"? Perhaps your body, mind, etc, aren't evolved for that environment? If you grew up here, if everything you know, everything you love, everything you are is here, how can the "real reality" actually be real to you?

I never actually read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I never remember anything mentioned of a simulated reality. When was that mentioned?

Read the book. Trust me. It's funny and it's worth it.
No, there's not a "virtual reality", but there is a super-computer simulation. It's the major point of the book.

Assuming this reality was not real, and somehow we found out it wasn't, wouldn't you feel as if you were tricked and you were trapped inside some kind of collossal illusion?

No. Why should I? I'm happy. The universe is still amazing, sex is still fantastic, peanut butter is still the best food, I love my girlfriend and once more, there's a whole new world to explore.

As Ikarus said,

"...we must think about it carefully and if choose to go ahead, then we're compelled to dedicate ourselves to rooting and nurturing the new being. And if we can't do that, or the cost to our current existance will be too high, then we mustn't, no matter how wonderful and exciting a future in existance the cyberbeing might have (...eating our pc's brains, for example)."

If there was a reality one step "higher", if you will, then those beings would have nurtured us, IMHO. We've evolved and done so much in so short a time, and all we could do after that is learn more from them, as they are learning from us.

Why would you even want to have this issue to begin with? Why would you even want to create internet based life?

I suppose that's better than claiming to be god. However, I don't know why you'd want to create a species of beings on the net? I mean with robotic technology, why not just create one on Earth?

Once again, Ikarus answered that beautifully.

But I want to point this out: Even the robot's reality will be different from ours. That's because any sentient being even within the same species, will perceive things differently.

Case in point: if you found out that this reality was inside a computer, you'd feel trapped. On the other hand, I wouldn't at all. I'd be curious, but feeling angry and trapped? Nope.

Two people, same planet, different worlds.

Yes computer calculations are being made, yes pixels are cleverly colored to make it seem like you're in the game world. However, despite how real it seems on the screen, it is an illusion.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I play FS9 a lot. I can tell you though that as real as it seems it is an illusion.

Perhaps so, but as I said before, we are NOT talking about a human reality in a simulated reality. We are talking about a sentient program who lives in an internet environment. Who's to say to a being like that OUR reality is just an illusion to him?

It reminds me of this comic: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/community/comics/images/ss53.jpg

In the physical sense is largely what I'm talking about.

I understand that, but what I don't think I'm conveying to you is that this other beings physical sense is not, in anyway way, the same as ours. It couldn't be. And it's not bad, it's just different.

Well, it's not the same as creating a being for intellectual curiousity. Additionally that sentient being is not going to grow up inside a bank of computers, it's going to grow up on Earth. It will grow up and will have desires, wants, needs of it's own. Eventually it will reach a maturity and age where it will not depend on me or it's mother, but will be able to function on its own. It will not be forever dependant on me, it will not have to live in my house forever.

But you've already decided on what it wants and desires are. You can't do that, you don't know. It's a different being with a different body, if it even has one by what we can imagine, with a different set of senses that perceives things in his own way that is different from us. You cannot know that it's going to say "I want out!". You may want that, but that is who you are. We don't know. He may want to have nothing to do with us and isolate himself from reality, he might want to take over the world, he might want what you want, he might want something that we can never understand or achieve for him, but he could.

We are about two things that are much more separate than apples and oranges, here.

I'm truthfully not entirely fond of this process. I mean hunting somehow seems better than raising them inside a farm/factory simply for the purpose of being killed and made into steaks, ribs, hamburgers, cold-cuts, and such.

I'm not saying I'm a member of PETA or anything (I'm not), I'm not even all that big an opponent of killing animals in the wild.

There is a term for putting your own needs above everybody else's all the time regardless of the suffering caused by this result, you know?

But you are assuming suffering. You are assuming that this being would suffer. You have no clue, just as I have no clue it wouldn't suffer. What if he was created and he doesn't suffer and survives? Should we not take that chance?

That's right. While I'm at this I'm just wondering -- with the technology to create mechanical stuff, why create life on the internet when we can just build robots?

The robot wouldn't exist inside some computer world, and would live in the same world we live in (Not that I'm all that fond of robots either)

Honestly I am curious why people go to such lengths to create artificial life. I mean we have so much of the natural kind. And it shouldn't be such a mystery why it's possible to do. So why are people going to such lengths to "prove" they can? It's already provable.

And I have a very simple explanation for why.

The human brain produces consciousness/sentience because of the electrical activity within it and it's structure. If I produced something that produced the same activity and worked on the same principle it would produce consciousness and sentience too.

I mean let's put it this way... you build a TV set. I copy the TV set, I design it the exact way you did, the exact same construction techniques, the same equipment, the same materials, and configuration. It's going to work just like yours.

Why is a brain any different?

A TV set is NOT sentient. See the Turning Test that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Also, by your theory, twins should grow up exactly the same.

I think, (just my theory now): take an adult human male. Clone him. The clone is not only an exact physical copy but an exact mental copy too. That is, they both remember the same experiences up to the cloning point. But there is a mix up and now no one remembers who is the clone and who is the host. Not even the host and clone themselves know.

Now they leave the cloning place and separate. They go off in different directions. They both experience different things and make adjustments to those things that, after a time, one would react different than the other in a given situation. In fact, they are different people, technically, the moment one of them makes a decision that the other doesn't.

Sure a lot of similarities will remain, but if there is one slight difference in their behavior between them, they are now two different people.

Major appliances don't work like that.....

If it would endanger our existance, or worse, life on earth, it would be irresponsible, dangerous and immoral to do so.

So we shouldn't have developed rockets which brought us to space and satellites and GPS and cell phones, because rockets brought us bombs? We shouldn't have discovered atom splitting which brings us electrical power because it created the atom bomb?

We create, test and experiment to explore the universe to try to understand it and to make life better. How we use what we learn is up to us as individuals. Now if we create a sentient life inside the internet, or even a robot, we will learn more about ourselves. What we do with that knowledge, and in this case, whether the treatment of those beings is cruel or not will be up to us and those beings. I am optimistic that if such a being is created, we would be able to work together with it. Maybe it's a false optimism, and honestly, I think Ikarus' views are more realistic than mine. But, no offense INRM, I think his views are more realistic than yours, too.

 

[JFrankA]

One more thing:

I would say I define reality as what remains when you stop believing...

I'm not entirely sure if that's the best definition but it's one that I often use

...if that's how you perceive reality, than that's fine. Just remember that not a lot of people perceives reality like you do.




....see how I did that?

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

I do regret to have not posted a longer reply, however the past two days I've been kind of under the weather. I don't have much energy to day...

How do you know that the other reality is better?

A harsh reality is better than a comfortable illusion.

Hell, what if you cannot even survive in the "real reality"? Perhaps your body, mind, etc, aren't evolved for that environment?

But couldn't your consciousness be transferred from the simulation to a robot? The robot could exist outside the simulation, no?

If you grew up here, if everything you know, everything you love, everything you are is here, how can the "real reality" actually be real to you?

If an illusion is an illusion it doesn't matter how real it seems. It's still an illusion. I would want to be free of the illusion.


INRM
BTW: One thing I should note is -- if the being is part of the simulation it is simulated too -- However if it's sentient whether it be a simulation or real, it's sentient. If I recall, Isaac Asimov had something to say about this. Yes I know it's an argument from authority -- but he was a great deal smarter than I am.