@DashEquals I'm fundamentally afraid of the future because I know I personally would happily use any public archive to recreate humanity in a simulation. however I am almost positive that there are others who would do the same thing; recreate your entire qualia in a simulation and torture you for the rest of your life. Some of these individuals may do that on basis that you're trying to copy their qualia to do the same to them.
Roko's basilisk is an infohazard.
a simulation of you, however similar, is not and cannot ever be you. If someone tortured your biological clone, it wouldn't be you and you wouldn't feel it (although it might be existentially horrifying if you knew about it and especially if you saw it happening). So people torturing non-bio simulations is neither here nor there. Arguably it's the ethical equivalent of attacking NPCs in video games.
@ultimape it's an interesting philosophical problem, but makes no practical difference either way. From our POV, our reality is real, and simulations made within it are not us, whether they are biological clones or digital ones. No improvement in cloning technology or the fidelity of digital simulation will change these facts. Ever. So it's not a problem.
@strypey I often mash it up in my head with philosophical zombies and the ship of thesius. Wondering if our conciousness could be uploaded a bit at a time, and at what point would the copy be indistinguishable from our own sense of self.
Once you start questioning your own ego and experience a state of egodeath, identity starts to blur a bit. Asking these questions stop being as meaningless as they seem on the surface.
@strypey ancient people used to think that the soul lived in the heart. Others started to think that the soul is in the mind. Further still many moderns think about a soul as a pattern of electrical signals interacting within a body.
I don't personally believe souls exist, so things get weird when I start to contemplate the nature if my own qualia.
at what point do we stop thinking of ourselves as whole and start thinking of ourselves as a hive of cellular clones.
@strypey for me quale is literally the essence our sense of reality. The question that also means that these "facts" arent actually as unchangeable as we tend to believe.
The idea of breaking out of the simulation is based on the notion that an entity within the simulation could hack it from within. The idea that even though it is a simulation, the agent itself exists in the larger substrate of the universe a simulation is running within.
@ultimape you've been reading #LessWrong or something and it's mis-focusing your intelligence. I recommend either a) a dose of entheogens, which help you see that all conscious experience is patterned but nebulous, and that the real/simulated and self/other dichotomies are as false as the mind/body one, or b) meaningness.com which does the same thing, less efficiently, using words and hyperlinks.
@ultimape my take is that what I think of as a "self" is simply a POV from which "not-self" is observed. The boundary between the two depends on what's being observed from that POV and how it's being interpreted. Fears about simulations stealing your qualia are just the digital equivalent of people being afraid that being photographed can steal your soul. Both qualia and soul are reifications of a nebulous (yet patterned) self which, if it is anything at all, is unitary and unique.
@strypey I only speak with the dichotomies because I'm assuming dash is situated among a western dialetic where identity and self are manifestations of enlightenment era thinking filtered thru calvanism and protestantism's focus on individual contributions. If we take a more eastern stance and view it thru meaningness's lenses we can also construe the paradox in Ship of Theseus as really a projection similar to the reification of a patterned self, with the idea of an ideal ship taint reasoning.
@strypey That being said, if one values the sense of self, massive corporations imbuing dopplegangers of a nebulous (yet patterned) self that have enough predictive capacity that they are able to get inside of your OODA loop, there seems to be little difference between that fear and the fear of someone stealing your soul. No simulation hypothesis level reasoning or roko's basiliks required, which was my larger point.
@strypey I assumed dash was acting out of stage 3 thinking, and I wanted to leverage an extension of his rationalism into thinking more meta.
@ultimape sure. The ship is a pattern, it's existence was nebulous from the the moment it began to exist. In fact, so nebulous that even when it began to be a ship, and how long it continued to be one, are inherently subjective questions, depending on how the word "ship" is defined in a given conversation. Is it still a "ship" before it's used to sail somewhere, or once it stops being used for sailing?
@ultimape a ship, however is different from a consciousness. If Theseus burned his ship and had a new one built, the fact that it's not continuous with the old ship is neither here nor there. It's still Theseus' ship. If I break up with my wife and marry another woman, the new wife is "Strypey's wife" but now the fact that her pattern is not continuous with the previous "Strypey's wife" is now very significant. The two are not interchangeable in the way the two ships are.
@ultimape in the same way, my awareness is not interchangeable with a simulation, however high-fidelity. So if I replaced my body with synthetic parts, one by one, it's a matter of opinion exactly when I stop being "me", but there's no question that at the point where there's no organic part of me left, I'm no longer me, even if the resulting simulation thinks it's me. It's still "Strypey" only in the same way my new wife is "Strypey's wife".
@ultimape in an open marriage I could gradually replace the new wife with the old wife, rather than divorce one and marry the other, but no matter how smooth the transition might be, there's still no question that the new wife is a different consciousness from the old one. I may be labouring the point a bit. Please feel free to nudge me onto the next point 😉
@strypey I read a lot of stuff from the weird-sun-twitter camp, and they seem to be adjacent to lesswrong, but I actually stay away from most of that place's stuff to avoid the echo chamber.
I did read the vampire version of meaningness but only because I wanted better language to describe meta-rationality; it was something I had already intuited on my own as an extension of my obsession with how learning happens.
Tl:DR; I sound similar because I read the same source texts.