From: Phillip Huggan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Dec 26 2005 - 21:13:14 MST
Yes. Survival of the fittest is wrong if the fitness parameters are assigned by or under the reasonable control of, moral agents. Evolution and ecosystems are value neutral but inventions or capital accumulations can be very right or very wrong, all else equal.
What if destroying us is not similiar to database deletion? What if our crappy tools we use to resolve our "consciousness data" (whatever that means) aren't good enough to capture the physics of what makes us sentient? What if the process of "transfering" (how exactly?) our personal identities to backup hard-drives and then back, results in killing off our personal identies? I'm pretty sure our consciousness is an emergent property of the physics of our central nervous systems; probably EM interactions of some sort. We are smart enough to and should override the naturally occuring mistake of assuming Strong-AI is responsible for our sentience (it isn't. If it were, how come everyone isn't psychic?). Of course, if the hard-drive backups utilized a Type VII civilization multiverse generator thing-a-ma-jing of the kind described in another sl4 thread a few days ago, it's a whole new ball of wax.
Mike Dougherty <email@example.com> wrote:
the concept of "inherently wrong" is unqualified. Is "survival of the fittest" inherently wrong?
if "destroying us" is conceptually similar to a database record deletion, then it may be a naturally occurring feature of the larger system in which this event takes place.
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT