Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 1:32:56 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 ShouldIt is the measure if you're going to be creating a system which will produce sentient beings who will have to endure any suffering that exists. And in the simulation, there would be an unthinkable amount of suffering that would be occurring in the process of 'raising everything', and I just want to know what would be the justification for initiating that process in the first place when there wasn't any problem needing to be solved; where the simulated existence filled with terrible suffering for some wasn't going to be a 'lesser of two evils' that had to happen in order to solve a greater problem. If the simulators programmed their computer to run a universe on which sentient life would exist, then for the purposes of this thought experiment, I'm proposing that instead of bringing societies into existence fully formed, that the simulators would decide to model their universe on a real universe by simulating real physical processes, including evolution. If they were to create such a universe, then great suffering would be inevitable, because without suffering, there would be no motivating factor to propel the course of evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 1:33:51 GMT
tpfkar 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. No one without axes to grind has "choose what to think before thinking it" as a criterium for free will. And it would be in no way required in anyone's theological beliefs unless they wished to purposely introduce infinitely regressing fatuousness. Being founded on such a definition makes this or any other similar scenario laughably irrelevant except perhaps for more morbid screwy comedy.
Does Free Will Exist? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 1:37:10 GMT
tpfkar "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 ShouldIt is the measure if you're going to be creating a system which will produce sentient beings who will have to endure any suffering that exists. And in the simulation, there would be an unthinkable amount of suffering that would be occurring in the process of 'raising everything', and I just want to know what would be the justification for initiating that process in the first place when there wasn't any problem needing to be solved; where the simulated existence filled with terrible suffering for some wasn't going to be a 'lesser of two evils' that had to happen in order to solve a greater problem. If the simulators programmed their computer to run a universe on which sentient life would exist, then for the purposes of this thought experiment, I'm proposing that instead of bringing societies into existence fully formed, that the simulators would decide to model their universe on a real universe by simulating real physical processes, including evolution. If they were to create such a universe, then great suffering would be inevitable, because without suffering, there would be no motivating factor to propel the course of evolution. Such a system isn't coherent without great control over their outcomes. If you choose to inflict or refrain from ameliorating bad when you are able, then you're baaaad. If you have no ability and the outcome is similar to this "world", then you're berry berry Good.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 20, 2018 1:56:08 GMT
If I was God, I'd hope I was capable of better. But suppose you had the computing power to set up a simulation of a universe with conscious inhabitants, but you knew that the best possible universe that could be programmed would be one in which the suffering/pleasure ratio was about the same as what we have in this universe at present, would you carry out the simulation? Probably not. I think humanity has probably reached the point where pleasure outweighs suffering on a global scale, but one has to consider that much of that is thanks to the advances of science and technology that has allowed us to conquer our environment to an unprecedented degree compared to other inhabitants, and that's been quite recently in our development. Go further back and there are thousands of years where I'm guessing there's a far, far higher degree of suffering than now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 2:09:18 GMT
tpfkar It is the measure if you're going to be creating a system which will produce sentient beings who will have to endure any suffering that exists. And in the simulation, there would be an unthinkable amount of suffering that would be occurring in the process of 'raising everything', and I just want to know what would be the justification for initiating that process in the first place when there wasn't any problem needing to be solved; where the simulated existence filled with terrible suffering for some wasn't going to be a 'lesser of two evils' that had to happen in order to solve a greater problem. If the simulators programmed their computer to run a universe on which sentient life would exist, then for the purposes of this thought experiment, I'm proposing that instead of bringing societies into existence fully formed, that the simulators would decide to model their universe on a real universe by simulating real physical processes, including evolution. If they were to create such a universe, then great suffering would be inevitable, because without suffering, there would be no motivating factor to propel the course of evolution. Such a system isn't coherent without great control over their outcomes. If you choose to inflict or refrain from ameliorating bad when you are able, then you're baaaad. If you have no ability and the outcome is similar to this "world", then you're berry berry Good.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEWell I could stipulate that the only way in which you can be granted funding for the simulation would be if the purpose of it was to study the Big Bang and the evolution of life, which would be an experimental protocol requiring a hands-off approach. However you could prevent bad by simply refusing to conduct the experiment to begin with and knowing that terrible suffering (that you would find intolerable if subjected to it yourself) would inevitably result from your decision to proceed with the experiment (and not equitably distributed so that everyone got a bit of suffering, but was also guaranteed sufficient pleasure that the suffering was worth it for the pleasure), then that is the same as choosing to inflict suffering, even if you aren't directly administering the harm to each simulant. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 2:15:11 GMT
tpfkar Such a system isn't coherent without great control over their outcomes. If you choose to inflict or refrain from ameliorating bad when you are able, then you're baaaad. If you have no ability and the outcome is similar to this "world", then you're berry berry Good.
Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEWell I could stipulate that the only way in which you can be granted funding for the simulation would be if the purpose of it was to study the Big Bang and the evolution of life, which would be an experimental protocol requiring a hands-off approach. However you could prevent bad by simply refusing to conduct the experiment to begin with and knowing that terrible suffering (that you would find intolerable if subjected to it yourself) would inevitably result from your decision to proceed with the experiment (and not equitably distributed so that everyone got a bit of suffering, but was also guaranteed sufficient pleasure that the suffering was worth it for the pleasure), then that is the same as choosing to inflict suffering, even if you aren't directly administering the harm to each simulant. Hands-off approach couldn't guarantee anything in particular on any particular time scale. It's just be an extended corner of some lifeless bit of whatever already exists. And in general one could do so much more net-"bad" by preventing all "good" at the expense of any iota of "bad".
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 2:21:33 GMT
tpfkar Well I could stipulate that the only way in which you can be granted funding for the simulation would be if the purpose of it was to study the Big Bang and the evolution of life, which would be an experimental protocol requiring a hands-off approach. However you could prevent bad by simply refusing to conduct the experiment to begin with and knowing that terrible suffering (that you would find intolerable if subjected to it yourself) would inevitably result from your decision to proceed with the experiment (and not equitably distributed so that everyone got a bit of suffering, but was also guaranteed sufficient pleasure that the suffering was worth it for the pleasure), then that is the same as choosing to inflict suffering, even if you aren't directly administering the harm to each simulant. Hands-off approach couldn't guarantee anything in particular on any particular time scale. It's just be an extended corner of some lifeless bit of whatever already exists. And in general one could do so much more net-"bad" by preventing all "good" at the expense of any iota of "bad".
It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence.If the computer simulation was set up to basically create evolved life in a simulated universe, then the process of evolution would require suffering, because otherwise there would be nothing to spur on the process of evolution. And by not starting the experiment to begin with, you wouldn't be doing any bad, because there wouldn't be anyone to deprive of good (the hypothetical inhabitants of the simulated universe won't exist unless you decide to press on with the experiment, having accepted the terms upon which funding will be granted). You would not be under any obligation to those hypothetical simulants to create the universe, because a) there is only an obligation not to do harm rather than an obligation to do good; and b) the people/animals who would want you to feel obliged to do the good at the risk of also bringing harm would not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 20, 2018 2:33:51 GMT
tpfkar If the computer simulation was set up to basically create evolved life in a simulated universe, then the process of evolution would require suffering, because otherwise there would be nothing to spur on the process of evolution. And by not starting the experiment to begin with, you wouldn't be doing any bad, because there wouldn't be anyone to deprive of good (the hypothetical inhabitants of the simulated universe won't exist unless you decide to press on with the experiment, having accepted the terms upon which funding will be granted). You would not be under any obligation to those hypothetical simulants to create the universe, because a) there is only an obligation not to do harm rather than an obligation to do good; and b) the people/animals who would want you to feel obliged to do the good at the risk of also bringing harm would not exist. Suffering is not the do-all be-all of everything. And if they were choosing to inflict suffering when they had the ability to get same/better results without it, then they are Bad[tm]. And not or not-not throwing out some physical matter isn't doing anything in particular, much less doing "harm", and for anything else they'd have more to complete control over outcomes. Is this thread in a simulation?  And harm/benefit are flip phrasings of the same thing, and in all cases if you are able as a "god" you'd be "obligated" to steer that equation as far to the happy (for most blokes) end as is possible, or be "judged" as "bad" by the datums.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal. |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 20, 2018 3:53:38 GMT
yup. i will give everyone 25 years to prove why i should keep them as they are. all the hitlers... get ass cancer.
no famine, no children with any sort of illness that kills them. no abuse. no psycho bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 5:04:40 GMT
yup. i will give everyone 25 years to prove why i should keep them as they are. all the hitlers... get ass cancer. no famine, no children with any sort of illness that kills them. no abuse. no psycho bullshit. What you've described isn't an option for the purposes of this poll. I'm asking whether you would create this universe with the same conditions under which life currently exists. You would only have the option to be a deist model of God, not one that actively interferes in everything. Also, if you were going to kill people who didn't behave as you desired, then it would make more sense just to set things up so that everyone would be good (which also isn't an option in this hypothetical scenario). There'd have been no point in asking the question if the universe that you were going to create was going to be one in which there were absolutely no drawbacks. I stipulated the terms of the hypothetical scenario for a reason. Also, if there was a chance of someone doing something to offend you within the first 25 years, that would come at the cost of suffering to whomever the victim of that person's actions was. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 20, 2018 12:40:26 GMT
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. Right, well again, that pretty much just boils down to the age-old question of suffering, and why have the universe at all, rather than Heaven from beginning to end. That is definitely a good question and I don't think anyone has come up with a perfect answer, though that's not the same as saying there is none. Everything we know about the human experience is about facing challenges and evolving, that is what defines human beings, without it I wouldn't know what you would have left. It is a very central aspect of humanity. I would say there is something there to be explored when searching for truth; though I would reject very simplistic mantras such as "everything happens for a reason." It is a question that hopefully one day we will know. But again, going back to the premises of the OP, I would strongly reject any kind of thinking of "well if there was a God, he still could have made a universe of challenges, but just do it better/not as harsh as it is now." |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2018 13:00:56 GMT
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.1. I'm not sure what you think I think of free will. If i believe in free will and the universe exists, then clearly the way I think of it exists. Maybe the way you think of it is non-existent. 2. If I have no control of the suffering and the suffering is random, then i am not imposing anything. I'm not even imposing the standards for evil and suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 13:09:44 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? We've had this discussion before. I'm not a hypocrite, so if their non-existent pleasure doesn't count then their non-existent suffering doesn't count either. And that's the end of that discussion. Yeah, it's your right to stack your deck in your favour. If I'm an omnipotent god then I can do what I like. You're presuming that dissatisfaction is the same thing as suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 20:17:23 GMT
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? We've had this discussion before. I'm not a hypocrite, so if their non-existent pleasure doesn't count then their non-existent suffering doesn't count either. And that's the end of that discussion. But if you decide to bring the universe into being, then the suffering is no longer non-existent. The joy isn't non-existent either, but then there has to be a cost to that (unneeded) joy, which needs to be borne by someone who hasn't consented to paying the price and would rather have foregone any possibility of happiness to avoid the suffering. If the universe was going to be endless bliss, there'd be no point in the thought experiment. The way that I worded it was designed to reflect the same moral conundrum involved in choosing whether or not to bring a child into existence (who will have to deal with the terms of existence as we know them, including all the risks). Not if it was a simulation being funded by a corporation who would only agree to the funding if the simulated universe was to be created in order to model real physical processes, and demanded a hands off approach after the initial conditions were set in motion. Dissatisfaction is the deprivation of satisfaction. What is deprivation if not suffering? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 20:20:58 GMT
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.1. I'm not sure what you think I think of free will. If i believe in free will and the universe exists, then clearly the way I think of it exists. Maybe the way you think of it is non-existent. 2. If I have no control of the suffering and the suffering is random, then i am not imposing anything. I'm not even imposing the standards for evil and suffering. 1. If I asked you to explain how free will operates in such a way that humans are culpable for their choices and God is not ultimately culpable for evil, I bet you wouldn't be able to. Your definition of free will cannot even be formulated in logical terms, because it always leads to an infinite regress. 2. You would be imposing the risk of suffering, and the inevitable fact that some would suffer. There would be no need to have created the universe to begin with, therefore all suffering is a result of your action and you would be the one who would have to account for why the cost of suffering was worth imposing in order to conduct the experiment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 20:47:26 GMT
We've had this discussion before. I'm not a hypocrite, so if their non-existent pleasure doesn't count then their non-existent suffering doesn't count either. And that's the end of that discussion. But if you decide to bring the universe into being, then the suffering is no longer non-existent. The joy isn't non-existent either, but then there has to be a cost to that (unneeded) joy, which needs to be borne by someone who hasn't consented to paying the price and would rather have foregone any possibility of happiness to avoid the suffering. Yes. I'm fine with that. As I said, if we are going to consider the not-yet-existant suffering then we also need to consider the not-yet-existant joy. And since my assessment of the situation is that the latter vastly outweighs the former, then I'm good to go. Of course there will be people who are massively happier than they are ever sad, and people who are massively sadder than they are ever happy. Winners and losers, I suppose you could call them. But hey, it's an imperfect universe - and you're the one who insisted that it be so. Yes I know. And it's your right to stack the deck that way if you want to, as I said. So if it were a very different hypothetical, then. Okay... Just that : dissatisfaction. If I feel like having an ice cream then it's nonsensical to declare that I am suffering without one. It's a matter of degree. Here's one for you : If you had a button in front of you right now which, when pushed, would cause every living being in existence to die, would you push it? Here's another : Suppose the button instead rendered every living thing in existence to become incapable of reproduction. Would you push that? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2018 20:51:13 GMT
1. I'm not sure what you think I think of free will. If i believe in free will and the universe exists, then clearly the way I think of it exists. Maybe the way you think of it is non-existent. 2. If I have no control of the suffering and the suffering is random, then i am not imposing anything. I'm not even imposing the standards for evil and suffering. 1. If I asked you to explain how free will operates in such a way that humans are culpable for their choices and God is not ultimately culpable for evil, I bet you wouldn't be able to. Your definition of free will cannot even be formulated in logical terms, because it always leads to an infinite regress. 2. You would be imposing the risk of suffering, and the inevitable fact that some would suffer. There would be no need to have created the universe to begin with, therefore all suffering is a result of your action and you would be the one who would have to account for why the cost of suffering was worth imposing in order to conduct the experiment. 1. free will is simply a matter of choices we can make within the confines of our ability. If we have choices, we have culpability with or without God. You can make that as complicated as you want to, of course, and so I imagine you will. 2. Risk is not a punishment or inherently evil. Risk is the balance between something good happening and something bad, and the odds through much of our life is in the good's favor. We may remember the bad as it triggers stronger emotions. For some reason, you think that a couple of acts of suffering completely wipeout the majority of times of good which is kinda ironic since mankind, as a whole which is what I assume is the perspective you view things, is destroying themselves. In any event, if all suffering is my fault simply via creation, then I can take credit for all joy as well which will always make life worth creating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 20:57:00 GMT
In any event, if all suffering is my fault simply via creation, then I can take credit for all joy as well which will always make life worth creating. I know you and I rarely agree on anything, so I just wanted to take the opportunity to say : an excellent point and very well said.  |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Mar 20, 2018 22:05:52 GMT
yup. i will give everyone 25 years to prove why i should keep them as they are. all the hitlers... get ass cancer. no famine, no children with any sort of illness that kills them. no abuse. no psycho bullshit. What you've described isn't an option for the purposes of this poll. I'm asking whether you would create this universe with the same conditions under which life currently exists. You would only have the option to be a deist model of God, not one that actively interferes in everything. Also, if you were going to kill people who didn't behave as you desired, then it would make more sense just to set things up so that everyone would be good (which also isn't an option in this hypothetical scenario). There'd have been no point in asking the question if the universe that you were going to create was going to be one in which there were absolutely no drawbacks. I stipulated the terms of the hypothetical scenario for a reason. Also, if there was a chance of someone doing something to offend you within the first 25 years, that would come at the cost of suffering to whomever the victim of that person's actions was. WELL then your options suck donkey balls. i'd make your death especially painful. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 22:25:51 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? I make this world where all males were circumcised, gays were tolerated ans drinking stella was outlawed. |
|
