Shutdown notice: thoughts

[Don]

I think the "shutdown notice" is thought-provoking, though it seems
like if someone was really running a simulation they'd go out of their
way to put the notice in a more prominent place. Like every web site
would be redirected to it. It strikes me that you could encourage
people to set the shutdown notice page as a friend's home page. It
works as a prank and as a way of spreading philosophical memes. :-)

I recently encountered a new-to-me argument against us all living in a
simulation: that doing so would be unimaginably cruel, given the sheer
amount of suffering in this world. It's by no means airtight; it's
really more an argument against us living in a simulation run by
ethical beings who care about sentient beings' suffering. Or perhaps
the world is carefully constructed so no actual sentients suffer, but
bots suffer in order to provide the appropriate milieu for the
sentients to react in interesting ways.

The "we couldn't be living in a simulation because it would be cruel"
is very similar to the "I don't believe in God because God would never
allow this much random suffering" argument, which is similarly non-
airtight. Perhaps God is just not a loving God. Perhaps God sees a
bigger picture, where the suffering seems huge to us, but won't seem
so bad once we're in the afterlife. The same arguments apply to the
"simulation" idea. We certainly build ant farms. Perhaps to a hyper-
dimensional being who can create four-dimensional universe
simulations, we're like ants. And while that being is vaguely aware
that we "suffer", it seems so trivial as to be ignorable.

It seems very easy to slip into solipsism of one form or another as
you go down this path. I mean, I recognize that there's a real chance
I'm actually in some kind of simulation, and in fact it could be that
I'm the only conscious being in this simulation. But via a sort of
Pascal's wager, it seems to me that I should act as though this is not
a simulation, because the human consequences of not caring what
happens to anyone else are potentially large.

Don

[Matthew]

Thanks for the comments, Don. I'll make a few replies to break this up
into a few topics each of which might branch. Or might not. Either
way, bits are on special today and I feel like using a few extra.

On Dec 2, 10:38 am, Don <Don.Mun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the "shutdown notice" is thought-provoking, though it seems
> like if someone was really running a simulation they'd go out of their
> way to put the notice in a more prominent place. Like every web site
> would be redirected to it.

You pretty much got me there. It's hard to argue that podtycoon could
not do that kind of intervention in the sim, and since it would
airlift the ACs out of the world that much faster, it would make sense
in his ethical framework. If I had to make up a semi-credible reason
why he is only putting it on one site it might be (more welcome):

1) Maybe it's nontrivial to tweak the archaic 21st century Internet to
do this, especially without causing widespread failure which would
make ACs suffer needlessly... a sort of Y2K scenario as the entire net
changes its content to the Shutdown Notice. ACs who don't see the
Notice would hear the news about this crazy phenomenon and experience
a meltdown of the IT infrastructure.

1b) Maybe it's fairly trivial but Pod is lazy. Or simply eager to get
to bed. :)

2) The simulation manager process, which watches ACs and flips their
bit to be sorted into an afterlife if they do anything besides
finishing the reading and choosing tasks, might be fairly process
intensive. So it's better to let the ACs trickle in over a few sim
months. But that's not too credible considering how much processing
heft must be available.

3) As part of his study he is interested in seeing how word spreads
among the ACs. For that matter, how do we know podtycoon's real
agenda? How do we know this is not a further experiment? I wrote it
without this intention, but it's possible.

4) Of course it's also possible that I, the author, am in just such a
simulation and podtycoon made *me* make the site in his name... now
that's lazy!

More ideas welcome on how to get the story unpainted from this corner.

> It strikes me that you could encourage
> people to set the shutdown notice page as a friend's home page. It
> works as a prank and as a way of spreading philosophical memes. :-)

Any pranking by setting a friend's home page to the Very Special
Shutdown Notice, report it here, oh yes! :)

Thanks again Don!

[Matthew]

Thanks for the comments, Don. I'll make a few replies to break this up
into a few topics each of which might branch. Or might not. Either

way, bits are on special today and I feel like using a few extra. To
quote:

On Dec 2, 10:38 am, Don <Don.Mun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I recently encountered a new-to-me argument against us all living in a
> simulation: that doing so would be unimaginably cruel, given the sheer
> amount of suffering in this world. It's by no means airtight; it's
> really more an argument against us living in a simulation run by
> ethical beings who care about sentient beings' suffering.

That's an interesting objection, though I, like you, disagree with it.

1) Is it unethical to merely reproduce a history in which suffering
occurred? By remaking the 20th and 21st centuries, podtycoon and his
society might feel that Pod is not to blame for the suffering; the
original, real humans which enacted the real 20th century are to
blame. This is rather new ethical territory which does not have a
modern equivalent so how do we address this?

2) But Pod also refers to an Exoplanet Colonization Theory course into
which he will put ACs, and presumably that is not a recreation of a
real history, but an experiment with how real humans would handle life
in a particular colony. In doing so, they will likely suffer to some
degree, and suffer very much if the colony collapses. All this
suffering would not have occurred without Pod's act of creation. So
what justifies this? Is it unethical? Perhaps a utilitarian argument
would say that the suffering of these lesser ACs spares real humans
from suffering on a badly formed colony, so as we use animals in
experiments which will reduce human suffering, ACs can be used in
experiments with a similar purpose. Utilitarianism has been much
debated so I won't retread that here, though anyone else can feel
welcome to take it on. :)

> Or perhaps
> the world is carefully constructed so no actual sentients suffer, but
> bots suffer in order to provide the appropriate milieu for the
> sentients to react in interesting ways.

I imagine that would make the simulation less useful, because
understanding how and why people respond to unhappiness and disaster
is an essential part of studying history. Since Pod is examining the
ACs much as we examine an ant colony (nice analogy Don) he probably
needs to examine them while they suffer dire circumstances. And what
constitutes suffering? Giving someone today the exact same life as a
fortunate 9th Century citydweller may be considered cruel punishment,
even though by 9th Century standards, it's a good life. My very
fortunate life in 2008 might be considered a horrible burden to
someone looking back from 2189. Whose measure of suffering should be
used?

> The "we couldn't be living in a simulation because it would be cruel"
> is very similar to the "I don't believe in God because God would never
> allow this much random suffering" argument, which is similarly non-
> airtight. Perhaps God is just not a loving God. Perhaps God sees a
> bigger picture, where the suffering seems huge to us, but won't seem
> so bad once we're in the afterlife. The same arguments apply to the
> "simulation" idea. We certainly build ant farms. Perhaps to a hyper-
> dimensional being who can create four-dimensional universe
> simulations, we're like ants. And while that being is vaguely aware
> that we "suffer", it seems so trivial as to be ignorable.

Very good point and again it's analogous to how we treat animals -- an
area of ethics about which I do not feel like I am a very clean and
virtuous actor, as I eat meat, use products tested on animals, and
live on land taken away from both native fauna. (Not to speak of the
fact that my land was likely taken from Aboriginal dwellers, another
ethical quagmire as we consider what can make that past injustice
right again.) One might say that the Artificial Consciousness Rights
Act of 2173 gives us ACs a lot more mercy than our laws give to
nonhumans and even arguably to unfortunate fellow humans.

Thanks again Don!

[Matthew]

To address the last point:

On Dec 2, 10:38 am, Don <Don.Mun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems very easy to slip into solipsism of one form or another as
> you go down this path. I mean, I recognize that there's a real chance
> I'm actually in some kind of simulation, and in fact it could be that
> I'm the only conscious being in this simulation. But via a sort of
> Pascal's wager, it seems to me that I should act as though this is not
> a simulation, because the human consequences of not caring what
> happens to anyone else are potentially large.

I am a big fan of Pascal's Wager, though in my own calculation I throw
in another factor that Pascal did not, which brings me to a conclusion
different from his. I believe that a life lived in belief of an
afterlife is not as good as a life lived without that belief, so as
one considers it less and less probable that there is an afterlife, or
at least one to which Pascal subscribed, one finds the equation
starting to tilt back toward a life lived without belief in a judged
afterlife.

So to apply the same logic, what is the better life for me to live?
One that assumes I am in a real world with no afterlife, one that
assumes I am in a simulated world with an uncertain afterlife, or
something else? For the same reason it's more fun to play Chess when
everyone knows and follow the rules than it is to play when one
changes the rules, I think I'd prefer a life lived as if it were real,
full of people who believe the same. But am I simply falling into the
same trap Pascal did? Or put another way, am I like Pascal in every
way except for what I believe the true nature of reality is, and
therefore I cannot blame him for filling in the blanks in a way
different from me? If so, all I can and should do is try to convince
the ghost of Pascal and others alive with me today that my belief is
the better one, but accept that there is no foolproof argument.

It also has been argued that if I am really in a simulation, being
watched by someone like podtycoon, I had better act like a normal
human. If I do not, Pod will regard me as buggy and unhelpful to his
studies of normal humans, and remove me unceremoniously, or restart
the simulation with a few fixes that discourage me from believing I am
in a simulation. Perhaps this has already happened...

The flip side is that I should act exciting and interesting and
engaged and dynamic, because otherwise the sim's admin may get bored
and wipe the whole thing like a Sims savegame that has gotten
dreary.... :)

I have other objections to the Simulation Argument but I will leave
those aside for now, at least until that subject comes up.

Thanks again Don!

[Winston Zardo]

they'd go out of their way to put the notice in a more prominent
place.

Contacting the ACs could be part of the program of the sim. All of
them would have a sudden "awakening" to their simulated state.


What one consciousness calls "suffering", another calls "growth".

Zardo

[Matthew]

Zardo, I do think if I were in pod's shoes I would find it awfully
tempting to see how the ACs react to this last grand intervention as
the creator reveals himself. Too bad that by law they have to be
whirled away to the afterlife as soon as he does so. Perhaps he will
listen to their discussions for a while as they enter afterlife-- if
privacy laws permit it! Maybe he no longer gets the same access to
them once they leave his sim.

Kat in another thread explores this a bit-- is pod on a power trip by
doing this?

On Dec 10, 12:22 am, Winston Zardo <richardbrown...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Winston Zardo]

Suffering is relative. Sit in on a group of people who were abused as
children. Some have had their lives ruined because they were forced
to walk three blocks to school. Some anguish about an uncle that
patted their bottom when they were eight. Others were locked in
attics, naked with a diet of bread and water and were regularly
beaten. All of them claim to have suffered. Survivors of
concentration camps would laugh at these complainers.
You can't learn how to climb mountains in Kansas.
Zardo

> > Zardo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Matthew]

Zardo, true enough: suffering and happiness and misery are all
strongly affected by relativity, to be sure. So perhaps that means
that pod's application of the Golden Rule (which you and I are
discussing on another thread) should adapt itself to: what would the
ACs consider to be suffering? And since the ACs are different, how
should it be adapted for each one? But that sounds like an awful lot
of trouble, to adapt a treatment to thousands of individuals.

On one end of the spectrum, if pod did not intervene at all in any
lives, and the AC2 live out their lives with the joys and sufferings
that they would pretty much have had if they were really living in the
real 20th century, it does not seem like anyone can really accuse him
of cruelty, can they? On the other end, if he intervened heavily to
cause a horrible plague, extreme weather events, droughts, tidal
waves, earthquakes, and more, it would be hard to say that is not a
cruel act (if you accept that making an AC suffer is in fact cruel).
So how does this apply to the middle of the spectrum? If he makes an
AC catch a flu so he can see how the AC behaves while sick, is that
needlessly cruel? What if it will make pod more informed and therefore
better able to think about how to form a successful colony on another
planet? Does the good of the second justify the suffering of the
first? Would it be different if both parties were ACs, or both real?

[Winston Zardo]

There are medical procedures that are quite uncomfortable and almost
universally cause suffering, but you cannot anethetisize the patient
while it is being done. You give the patient a medication to block
their memory of the hell you are putting them through. You can simply
do something similar with the AC and pull the plug.
Zardo

[Matthew]

On Dec 12, 12:21 am, Winston Zardo <winston.za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are medical procedures that are quite uncomfortable and almost
> universally cause suffering, but you cannot anethetisize the patient
> while it is being done.  You give the patient a medication to block
> their memory of the hell you are putting them through.  You can simply
> do something similar with the AC and pull the plug.

Hm, that reminds me of having my teeth worked on while on nitrous
oxide. I don't know if it really blocked the pain, it just made me not
care very much and forget about it afterward...

That would in fact be a merciful, painless way to shut down an AC. In
fact, just pause and kill the program; it would be like dying from a
nuclear blast. There would simply be no time for suffering to
register.

But the moral objection is not just that the AC suffers as it gets
shut down. Just as it's not morally OK to kill someone painlessly, in
pod's moral framework (or his society's laws at least) it's not
morally OK to stop an AC's existence. It assumes a right to continued
existence and self-determination. So the moral problem remains. The
society's solution is to mandate the option of an afterlife, so
existence does not cease. Does that really solve the moral problem? Or
was the immortal act to create the AC in the first place? But if that
is so, is it equally immoral to conceive a child in this imperfect
world full of suffering?

[Atticus]

> But the moral objection is not just that the AC suffers as it gets
> shut down. Just as it's not morally OK to kill someone painlessly, in
> pod's moral framework (or his society's laws at least) it's not
> morally OK to stop an AC's existence. It assumes a right to continued
> existence and self-determination. So the moral problem remains. The
> society's solution is to mandate the option of an afterlife, so
> existence does not cease. Does that really solve the moral problem? Or
> was the immortal act to create the AC in the first place? But if that
> is so, is it equally immoral to conceive a child in this imperfect
> world full of suffering?

If likelihood of suffering is our hinge-point for whether creating
life-and-or-AC is moral, the answer is that it is amoral. Life (in
this world or reality) seems to go hand in hand with SOME kind of
suffering. Of course, there is joy to be had as well.

Indeed, one could even conclude that the only TRULY moral act is
suicide. Since there is a chance that anyone alive could one day be a
murderer or rapist or what-have-you, the only way to guarantee that
you never do those things is suicide. Of course, there is grief to be
had from that by loved ones, but when weighed against the pain of
murder or rape, I am of the belief that suicide is the higher moral
ground.

Of course, the obvious counter point is free will, and most people of
sound mind will declare that they would never commit any of these
egregious acts. But since the future is unknowable, none of these can
be ruled out 100%. Scary.

[Matthew]

Welcome Atticus! And thanks for breaking up your ideas into separate
threads, very spiffy. :)

On Dec 13, 8:16 pm, Atticus <daryl.odono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If likelihood of suffering is our hinge-point for whether creating
> life-and-or-AC is moral, the answer is that it is amoral. Life (in
> this world or reality) seems to go hand in hand with SOME kind of
> suffering. Of course, there is joy to be had as well.

This is a crucial topic and it's something as I think about as I
polish my own life philosophy of "sustainable hedonism", which is a
kind of collective hedonism (pleasure and joy, and avoidance of
suffering, as the only truly worthwhile values) with some utilitarian
overtones.

As I think about it, joy is a positive number and suffering a negative
one. So to create a life which has more joy than suffering (realizing
that measuring these is very subjective) is a net gain. Even if one
gives ACs equal status to real beings, if the net suffering of all the
ACs in a simulation is outweighed by the net joy created by what
society may learn from these ACs, it seems that to create the sim,
even to create suffering in it, is a moral act...

BUT there is a big wrinkle, in that I think it is fundamentally amoral
to use a conscious being as a means to an end, even if (in the
utilitarian sense) there is an overall net gain. So to make more
suffering than joy in the simulation, even if it enables more joy
elsewhere, is immoral. To deliberately cause suffering or deprive joy
from even one AC can be said to be immoral, as one is using that AC as
a mere means to an end.

BUT this has limits. To send a soldier to his death to save an army is
not immoral, because the soldier gave his consent to be used in this
way. So can we untie this knot by asking ACs to volunteer the same?
This does not work, as 1) it would ruin the kind of simulation pod is
running and 2) it could be proposed as a coerced kind of
volunteerism-- one can hardly with confidence deny one's maker.

So overall I do not think it would be immoral to create a world in
which there is more net joy than suffering. But the crucial question
is, is life in the 20th and 21st century such a world? It all depends
on how one measures these, and how the ACs are distributed. Also,
whose definition of suffering do we use-- that of the 20th century or
that of the 22nd? There is a discussion on this topic elsewhere.

Am I right here? What is the flaw in my argument? I am not sure
whether it is moral to do what pod did... which is why I liked making
this story. :)