Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:08:12 GMT
If I were powerless to stop evil, then I'm not sure what the ethical dilemma would be in starting the creation. I guess if I were completely self-sufficient and the universe would be created primarily for me to just watch, I guess I could go ahead and create it although without much motivation. The fact that you would be needlessly condemning some of your creations to suffering, knowing that you have no way of protecting them from the suffering and evils that you will impose upon them for the sake of your experiment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:09:43 GMT
For those that voted no, do you feel it would be morally acceptable to annihilate the universe right now, thus ending all suffering and consciousness in general? I didn't vote, given that it was my poll, but I would say that it would be morally acceptable given that we don't really have any other way to stop the cycle of harm and imposition, and if all sentience just faded into oblivion, nobody would be able to mourn the loss of the universe (and therefore there'd be no victims of the action). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:11:37 GMT
Yes I would. Given how the amount of pleasure joy in the universe appears to so comprehensively outweigh the amount of suffering, I wouldn't hesitate on that front at all. Although if I'm god, I don't see why I'm disallowed from creating one with the joy but without the suffering. But the non-existent creations weren't missing out on any of that pleasure before you created that universe, so why would that justify imposing the suffering on those who will feel that they are paying the cost of the alleged benefit that is distributed randomly, and with no reference to fairness? As for why you'd have to create a flawed universe rather than a perfect one, well for starters those are just the terms of the thought experiment. Secondly, it's not at all clear that evolution could work without suffering as the primary motivating factor. If sentient beings were just always satisfied, no matter what, what would be propelling them on to pass on their genetic material? So it seems hard to imagine how it could be engineered to work without suffering unless we were not trying to design an evolutionary model. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Mar 20, 2018 0:11:51 GMT
For those that voted no, do you feel it would be morally acceptable to annihilate the universe right now, thus ending all suffering and consciousness in general? That would be wonderful |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2018 0:11:54 GMT
If I were powerless to stop evil, then I'm not sure what the ethical dilemma would be in starting the creation. I guess if I were completely self-sufficient and the universe would be created primarily for me to just watch, I guess I could go ahead and create it although without much motivation. The fact that you would be needlessly condemning some of your creations to suffering, knowing that you have no way of protecting them from the suffering and evils that you will impose upon them for the sake of your experiment. That works both ways doesn't it? I'm condemning people who may not need protecting from evil and suffering, like most of us. This sounds like the abortion debate actually. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 20, 2018 0:17:19 GMT
I am a conscientious objector to this poll and have not answered because fundamentally I don't believe this is a possible scenario. There is no God and the existence of the universe is natural and evolutionary. It just happened. It may be possible to computationally simulate a universe with conscious inhabitants, and there are some who theorise that we, in fact, inhabit one of these computer simulations. I probably should have made it clearer in the OP that I was thinking of a computer simulation type of scenario. If it is possible, should it be done, or would it be too ethically problematic? If this is just a hypothetical scenario so that you can whine about how depressed you are and should we allow this horrible world to be reproduced...? May I also remind you of your subject heading? I am not playing. I don't believe in God. The universe is what it is. Life is what it is. Just get on with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:33:59 GMT
The fact that you would be needlessly condemning some of your creations to suffering, knowing that you have no way of protecting them from the suffering and evils that you will impose upon them for the sake of your experiment. That works both ways doesn't it? I'm condemning people who may not need protecting from evil and suffering, like most of us. This sounds like the abortion debate actually. They didn't need to be brought into existence, and regardless of how well those people are capable of dealing with suffering and evil, it's cruel to impose it without having been compelled to do so (in my view). So I'm just wondering what your rationale would be for creating the problem in the first place, when you weren't compelled to do so (as per the scenario) and weren't fixing a problem that already existed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:44:39 GMT
and you had the ability to create a universe of your own, which would be fairly similar to the universe that we are inhabiting with the same amount of suffering, joy, torture, death, pain etc... would you do it? Let's say that once you had started the universe, you would be powerless to step in to intervene against evil, or to prevent suffering. But you did know from the outset that you would not be able to produce a universe with significantly less conscious suffering than the one that you live in yourself. Would you jump straight into it, believing that you were bestowing a gift upon the inhabitants of your universe and there was effectively no downside to your experiment? Or do you think that the project would be too ethically problematic due to the suffering that would be experienced by many of the inhabitants? Do you think that if we were capable of simulating such a universe with powerful computers capable of producing conscious simulated characters, that such an experiment could pass a university ethics committee? Sorry bro, but the premises of this argument is one of the main flaws of atheistic thinking. First of all, how in the world do you know that there weren't "worse" versions of the universe under consideration? We can talk about cancer, war etc now - but what if the original plan had 1000s times worse things, but were removed in order to balance out what we can stand, and what we couldn't? Also, the perception of human suffering is just that, perception. You remove the very worst thing about this universe from existence - and guess what - the thing second on your list becomes the worst thing, with just as much power. Because your mind adapts to what is the new limit. If you created a universe where you removed nearly all ills, and the worst thing about it was people getting paper-cuts - the inhabitants of that world would still ask you why you are a monster for creating so much pain and suffering. They wouldn't be able to conceptualize that you've spared them from much worse things, as those worse things do not exist st all in their version of the universe. Without context, they will still call you a sadistic bastard. Then it all spirals down into "well why have a world at all with any challenges of any sort, why not just have heaven from the beginning to end" - and that becomes a different topic to explore. But the notion that God is cruel because of our perception of how horrible the world is, (or God doesn't exist because if He did he wouldn't have created such a world) absolutely does not hold up. That doesn't contradict my beliefs as an antinatalist. It's possible to imagine a universe that is much worse than the one we have, but it is difficult to imagine a universe in which there wasn't some kind of problem that needed to be fixed; where joy could exist without the context of suffering and the threat of deprivation. In my opinion, it would be very difficult to justify starting a universe unless there were lierally no problems at all, and in such a universe I can't imagine how organims would evolve, given that suffering is the main driver of evolution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:46:15 GMT
It may be possible to computationally simulate a universe with conscious inhabitants, and there are some who theorise that we, in fact, inhabit one of these computer simulations. I probably should have made it clearer in the OP that I was thinking of a computer simulation type of scenario. If it is possible, should it be done, or would it be too ethically problematic? If this is just a hypothetical scenario so that you can whine about how depressed you are and should we allow this horrible world to be reproduced...? May I also remind you of your subject heading? I am not playing. I don't believe in God. The universe is what it is. Life is what it is. Just get on with it. Someone who creates and holds dominion over a simulated universe is a god, of sorts. They're god of that universe, even if their own provenance was not supernatural. Your answer is a mere cop out. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 20, 2018 0:48:28 GMT
I say probably not...mostly because I have a hard time ramping up my own ambition. So I’d mull around the idea for a universe for a while and then ultimately go back to watching a movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2018 0:49:04 GMT
That works both ways doesn't it? I'm condemning people who may not need protecting from evil and suffering, like most of us. This sounds like the abortion debate actually. They didn't need to be brought into existence, and regardless of how well those people are capable of dealing with suffering and evil, it's cruel to impose it without having been compelled to do so (in my view). So I'm just wondering what your rationale would be for creating the problem in the first place, when you weren't compelled to do so (as per the scenario) and weren't fixing a problem that already existed. Of course no one asked to be born, but it's silly to think doom and gloom is either the inevitable. Creation is not the problem. Freedom may be, but a creator should never automatically be defined by the freedom it allows and especially if he has no control over it as with your scenario. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:49:13 GMT
I think the ethical dilemma (for most moral people) would be the intentional act of creating evil (or the conditions where evil, pain, suffering, and death are inevitable), while being powerless to stop it. That's not an ethical dilemma unless the OP is saying evil outweighs the good which I wouldn't say is happening even now and assuming there is no god at all. Even then, I'm not sure it would be my problem if the creation has free will. I as the creator wouldn't even be able to define evil for them. Maybe if the question is tied to whether it is ethical for people to have free will without guidance. That isn't a prerequisite, although the fact that evil is inequitably distributed and that not everyone has the same disposition towards coping with evil is a prerequisite. The latter condition is one that indisputably obtains within the universe that we have at present, even if you would doubt that evil outweighs good. And free will cannot exist in any meaningful sense in any model of a universe that one can imagine. But even ignoring the fact that free will (as you think of it) cannot exist, you would still be inevitably be imposing some kind of suffering upon someone who didn't deserve it, without any kind of compelling reason to warrant the imposition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:54:01 GMT
tpfkar Being limited is the only way a "god" could be remotely moral. As for simulations, anything goes without having any clue about creating consciousness or really even what it is.
a smile on a [dg]o[gd]The only way that a god could be moral would be is if there was a guarantee that absolutely nothing could go wrong with their creation (no suffering ever experienced), which by definition would mean that god had unlimited power. Without that guarantee, one should not play god (whether that means creating a simulated universe to be inhabited by conscious simulated entities, or creating a sentient being that has to deal with the imperfect conditions that obtain in the already existing universe). There are those who theorise that we are simulated conscious beings living in a simulated universe, so for the sake of the thought experiment, I'm starting from the assumption that such an experiment would be viable. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 1:04:17 GMT
tpfkar Being limited is the only way a "god" could be remotely moral. As for simulations, anything goes without having any clue about creating consciousness or really even what it is.
a smile on a [dg]o[gd]The only way that a god could be moral would be is if there was a guarantee that absolutely nothing could go wrong with their creation (no suffering ever experienced), which by definition would mean that god had unlimited power. Without that guarantee, one should not play god (whether that means creating a simulated universe to be inhabited by conscious simulated entities, or creating a sentient being that has to deal with the imperfect conditions that obtain in the already existing universe). There are those who theorise that we are simulated conscious beings living in a simulated universe, so for the sake of the thought experiment, I'm starting from the assumption that such an experiment would be viable. Not even, just the best he can. The god would be exceedingly good to give what we have if that was the best of his abilities, as having this continuously improving experience is massively preferable to never having the option at all. And if they're knowingly "creating consciousness" then they're very far beyond tossing out of some primitive physical bits and letting it fly.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 20, 2018 1:05:33 GMT
th If this is just a hypothetical scenario so that you can whine about how depressed you are and should we allow this horrible world to be reproduced...? May I also remind you of your subject heading? I am not playing. I don't believe in God. The universe is what it is. Life is what it is. Just get on with it. Someone who creates and holds dominion over a simulated universe is a god, of sorts. They're god of that universe, even if their own provenance was not supernatural. Your answer is a mere cop out. How can I possibly cop out from a) a hypothetical scenario b] a premise to which I don't subscribe? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 1:19:59 GMT
tpfkar The only way that a god could be moral would be is if there was a guarantee that absolutely nothing could go wrong with their creation (no suffering ever experienced), which by definition would mean that god had unlimited power. Without that guarantee, one should not play god (whether that means creating a simulated universe to be inhabited by conscious simulated entities, or creating a sentient being that has to deal with the imperfect conditions that obtain in the already existing universe). There are those who theorise that we are simulated conscious beings living in a simulated universe, so for the sake of the thought experiment, I'm starting from the assumption that such an experiment would be viable. Not even, just the best he can. The god would be exceedingly good to give what we have if that was the best of his abilities, as having this continuously improving experience is massively preferable to never having the option at all.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMENo, because there was nobody in need of that pleasure, and secondly it isn't the god themselves who is going to be paying the cost of the "continuously improving experience", it will be the least fortunate of the animals that suffer. Don't forget that in this scenario, you wouldn't be starting off in the 21st century AD, the simulation would have to run through all of the brutality of the chain of evolution and human prehistory in which disease ran rampant, there was no anaesthetic or any pharmaceutical cures. It would be extremely arrogant for god to think that he knew best to force sentient beings of his or her creation to have to endure that without being compelled to do so by the voices of his pre-existing creations crying out from the void because they were bored with not having a chance to exist. In the scenario that I'm proposing, the 'god' would be setting up the universe in such a way that it resembled the universe that we currently live in and would be capable of supporting conscious simulated life. The computer itself would have sufficient computing power to simulate consciousness in its simulated creatures at the time when the programme had gotten to the stage where it had evolved advanced animal life forms. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 1:21:46 GMT
tpfkar That isn't a prerequisite, although the fact that evil is inequitably distributed and that not everyone has the same disposition towards coping with evil is a prerequisite. The latter condition is one that indisputably obtains within the universe that we have at present, even if you would doubt that evil outweighs good. And free will cannot exist in any meaningful sense in any model of a universe that one can imagine. But even ignoring the fact that free will (as you think of it) cannot exist, you would still be inevitably be imposing some kind of suffering upon someone who didn't deserve it, without any kind of compelling reason to warrant the imposition. It already exists in this universe.  The assertion that it doesn't scuppers any simulation/hypothetical that is supposed to somehow correlate to our own situation.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 1:26:05 GMT
tpfkar No, because there was nobody in need of that pleasure, and secondly it isn't the god themselves who is going to be paying the cost of the "continuously improving experience", it will be the least fortunate of the animals that suffer. Don't forget that in this scenario, you wouldn't be starting off in the 21st century AD, the simulation would have to run through all of the brutality of the chain of evolution and human prehistory in which disease ran rampant, there was no anaesthetic or any pharmaceutical cures. It would be extremely arrogant for god to think that he knew best to force sentient beings of his or her creation to have to endure that without being compelled to do so by the voices of his pre-existing creations crying out from the void because they were bored with not having a chance to exist. In the scenario that I'm proposing, the 'god' would be setting up the universe in such a way that it resembled the universe that we currently live in and would be capable of supporting conscious simulated life. The computer itself would have sufficient computing power to simulate consciousness in its simulated creatures at the time when the programme had gotten to the stage where it had evolved advanced animal life forms. "Need" for one's existence is never the measure. And the answer of course is to work on raising everybody and not on narcissistically killing all. What would be extremely arrogant would be that any simulator guys would have any targeted real outcome on any measurable timescale by just tossing out the base physical. And in any other case they have more to complete control over the outcomes of their simulation "subjects".
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 1:27:16 GMT
tpfkar That isn't a prerequisite, although the fact that evil is inequitably distributed and that not everyone has the same disposition towards coping with evil is a prerequisite. The latter condition is one that indisputably obtains within the universe that we have at present, even if you would doubt that evil outweighs good. And free will cannot exist in any meaningful sense in any model of a universe that one can imagine. But even ignoring the fact that free will (as you think of it) cannot exist, you would still be inevitably be imposing some kind of suffering upon someone who didn't deserve it, without any kind of compelling reason to warrant the imposition. It already exists in this universe. The assertion that it doesn't scuppers any simulation/hypothetical that is supposed to somehow correlate to our own situation.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?It doesn't exist in the sense of conscious beings able to choose what to think before thinking it (which is what would be required by CoolJGS☺' theological beliefs), which is the only definition I'm referring to, as any other definition would be irrelevant to this scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 20, 2018 1:30:56 GMT
tpfkar Not even, just the best he can. The god would be exceedingly good to give what we have if that was the best of his abilities, as having this continuously improving experience is massively preferable to never having the option at all.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMENo, because there was nobody in need of that pleasure, and secondly it isn't the god themselves who is going to be paying the cost of the "continuously improving experience", it will be the least fortunate of the animals that suffer. Don't forget that in this scenario, you wouldn't be starting off in the 21st century AD, the simulation would have to run through all of the brutality of the chain of evolution and human prehistory in which disease ran rampant, there was no anaesthetic or any pharmaceutical cures. It would be extremely arrogant for god to think that he knew best to force sentient beings of his or her creation to have to endure that without being compelled to do so by the voices of his pre-existing creations crying out from the void because they were bored with not having a chance to exist. In the scenario that I'm proposing, the 'god' would be setting up the universe in such a way that it resembled the universe that we currently live in and would be capable of supporting conscious simulated life. The computer itself would have sufficient computing power to simulate consciousness in its simulated creatures at the time when the programme had gotten to the stage where it had evolved advanced animal life forms. LOL The more this thread progresses, the more you are becoming a 'theist' to your own proposal of a creation ie making up the rules as you go along. May I suggest you write it down and call it 'The Bible of Computer Universe Simulation'? LOLOLOLOLOLOL |
|
