| ▲ | jayd16 14 hours ago |
| It's pretty wild. People are punching into a calculator and hand-wringing about the morals of the output. Obviously it's amoral. Why are we even considering it could be ethical? |
|
| ▲ | Quarrelsome 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Have you tried "kill all the poor?" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE |
|
| ▲ | coldtea 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Obviously, why? Because it makes calculations? You think that ultimately your brain doesn't also make calculations as its fundamental mechanism? The architecture and substrate might be different, but they are calculations all the same. |
| |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Brains do not "make calculations". Biological neurons do not "make calculations" What they do is well described by a bunch of math. You've got the direction of the arrow backwards. Map, territory, etc. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | p-e-w 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Obviously it's amoral. That morality requires consciousness is a popular belief today, but not universal. Read Konrad Lorenz (Das sogenannte Böse) for an alternative perspective. |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That we have consciousness as some kind of special property, and it's not just an artifact of our brain basic lower-level calculations, is also not very convincing to begin with. | | |
| ▲ | paltor 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | In a trivial sense, any special property can be incorporated into a more comprehensive rule set, which one may choose to call "physics" is one so desires; but that's just Hempel's dilemma. To object more directly, I would say that people who call the hard problem of consciousness hard would disagree with your statement. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People who call "the hard problem of consciousness hard" use circular logic (notice the two "hards" in the phrase). People who merely call "the problem of consciousness hard" don't have some special mechanism to justify that over what we know, which is as emergent property of meat-algorithmic calcuations. Except Penrose, who hand-waves some special physics. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Luckily there are a fair number of people that reject the hard problem as an artifact of running a simulation on a chemical meat computer. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jayd16 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You'd be hard pressed to convince me, for example, a police dog has morals. The bar is much higher than consciousness. |
|
