Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
MIT Media Lab’s folding CityCar

‪BMW shows off their semi-autonomous driving system‬

Autonomous Transportation for the Year 2030

Automated Cars: Redux

Russell Blackford: Freedom of Religion

‪Jason Silva on Psychedelic Rapture, Ecstatic Awe‬ and Technology

Must the Rich be Lured into Investing? Who are the Real “Job Creators?”

I Want a God-Like Brain

SENS5 - Collective advantages of Life Extension

Malcolm Gladwell on Income Inequality: We’re Off the Rails


ieet books

Smart Mice, Not-So-Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics
Author
by Arthur Caplan

From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form
by Martine Rothblatt

Freedom of Religion and the Secular State
by Russell Blackford

The Olympics: The Basics
by Andy Miah and Beatriz Garcia


comments

Intomorrow on 'The Future of Women' (Feb 9, 2012)

hankpellissier on 'I Want a God-Like Brain' (Feb 9, 2012)

Intomorrow on 'We Are All Pirates' (Feb 9, 2012)

CygnusX1 on 'Automated Cars: Redux' (Feb 9, 2012)

Pastor_Alex on 'I Want a God-Like Brain' (Feb 9, 2012)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv


IEET > Rights > Personhood > Vision > Virtuality > Directors > George Dvorsky

Print Email permalink (1) Comments (1774) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Welcome to the Machine, Part 1: The ethics of simulated beings


George Dvorsky
George Dvorsky
Sentient Developments

Posted: Apr 9, 2009

Without a doubt some of my favorite video games of all time have been those that involve simulations, including SimCity and The Sims. When I play these games I fancy myself a demigod, managing and manipulating the slew of variables made available to me; with the click of a mouse I can alter the environment and adjust the nature of the simulated inhabitants themselves.

There’s no question that these games are becoming evermore realistic and sophisticated. A few years ago, for example, a plug-in was developed for The Sims allowing the virtual inhabitants to entertain themselves by playing none other than SimCity itself. When I first heard about this I was struck with the vision of Russian Matrioshka nesting dolls, but instead of dolls I saw simulations within simulations within simulations.


And then I remembered good old Copernicus and his principle of mediocrity: We should never assume that our own particular place in space and time is somehow special or unique. Thinking of the simulation Matrioshka, I reflected on the possibility that we might be Sims ourselves: Why should we assume that we are at the primary level of reality?

Indeed, considering the radical potential for computing power in the decades to come, we may be residing somewhere deep within the Matrioshka.

Consequently, we are all faced with a myriad of existential, philosophical and ethical questions. If we are merely simulants, what does it mean to be alive? Are our lives somehow lessened or even devoid of meaning? Should we interact with the world and our fellow simulants differently than before we knew we were living in a simulation? How are we to devise moral and ethical codes of conduct?

In other words, how are we to live?

Well, there’s no reason to get too excited over this. It’s a bit of speculative metaphysics that doesn’t really change anything—assuming we are in a simulation, we should live virtually the same way as if we were living in the “real” world.

That is unless, of course, those running the simulation expect something from us. Which means we need to figure out what it is exactly we’re supposed to do…


George Dvorsky serves as Chair of the IEET Board of Directors and also heads our Rights of Non-Human Persons program. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.
Print Email permalink (1) Comments (1775) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


My initial reaction is that the motivation for this problem, as you've stated it, is a little like seeing a photograph in another photograph and then wondering if you were merely a photograph!

First off, I'm assuming that I'm in what you suspect may be a "simulation" and two things I'm very certain about is that I can feel pain and I don't like it. I also assume, although I can't prove, that others feel pain. Therefore, even if we can't figure out what exactly is going on, we still have a pretty good foundation for some sort of ethics based on avoiding suffering, like utilitarianism. I would also argue that the existence of pain in this world is incompatible with the idea of us being "merely simulants" in the same sense that a video game character is a "mere simulant".

Now, assuming that something like functionalism is true and that being a "simulant" makes sense, you've basically stated a version of creationism where the creator has decided to be apparently silent when it comes to his/her expectations. The silence assumption must be true from at least someone's perspective since it wouldn't make much sense for you to say that we need to figure out something that everyone has already figured out.

Therefore, someone to whom he has remained silent (assuming they even care) should probably:

a) Look for indirect evidence of his/her purpose in the simulation itself.
b) Seek out chosen people who he has decided to communicate his will to.
c) Seek to become one of the chosen who he communicates directly to.

Welcome to Theism!

Of course you've also left open the possibility of the creator being himself a "simulant". This could be seen as a restatement of the gnostic idea of a Demiurge or even some Christian ideas regarding Satan. The natural extension of this idea is that if we become capable of creating simulants like ourselves, then we actually become a sort of inauthentic god, or Demiurge, since we aren't ourselves certain about or in control of the absolute reality that enslaves us. So the question is then flipped on it's head. What do we expect from our simulants and how do we convey our will to them?

Given the fact that our major selling point for creating these simulants so far seems to be variations on either "just to see what happens" or to "make them our virtual slaves", it strikes me that we wouldn't be very good Demiurges. This in turn could come in conflict with someone in our own chain of creators. For some ideas about what might happen next see any apocalyptic text.

So, all this seems to imply the need for some sort of ethics based on the expectations of the creator at the highest level of control.

Welcome to Monotheism!

-jcs



YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: What is Mindware?

Previous entry: Raising the Issue of Asian Ethics

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376