From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 15 2002 - 04:42:35 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>>
>>Did I say I react exactly to same to one as to the other? No.
>>Sometimes it feels as if you assume whatever you wish to make
>>the person you see as your "opponent" look as foolish as
>>possible. The focus of my dislike of the gore variety of video
>>games (esp. where that is the main attraction) is not in caring
>>for the a/v characters as in witnessing the psychological stance
>>and changes of the human being thus "entertained". At least
>>this side of real sentients in the virtual world, I expect that
>>will continue to be the primary source of my consternation at
>>such entertainment.
>>
>
> What you said was:
>
> "It is not the violence itself that turns me off so much as the
> gratuitous indulgence in violence and abhorrent attitudes that
> many of the players would never display or want any part of in
> real life. It is all so one-sided. One can engage in rage and
> murder endlessly with no risk to oneself and often not even much
> real gore from the act to give one a moment's pause."
This says it is the psychological state of the players, not an
asumption of real hurt to the bits on the screen that most
bothers me. Exactly what is not obvious about that?
>
> You have also said: "Personally I have never found "virtual space"
> violence any more palatable than the physical space variety. I abhor
> both."
>
Again, primarily from the point of view of the indulgence in
these emotions as "entertainment" and the state exhibited by
the players. Where is your point?
> Using terms like 'palatable' and 'abhor' implied to me that your
> visceral gut reaction was quite severe. I suppose I should have
> pre-filtered what you said, assuming that you didn't really mean what
> you said, that the adjectives and adverbs chosen were selected more for
> the intended reaction in the reader rather than your own real emotional
> response. It is common tendency to hyperbolize.
>
You pick a couple of words out, ignore the rather obvious
meaning, and use them to weakly construct your own. Which you
don't really even bother to do but only reassert. It seems that
you in fact are not choosing to listen to what I am saying and
insist on claiming that I mean what you say rather than what I
said and reiterated to make sure it gets through. This is rude
and uncalled for. If you are going to talk to me then talk to
me instead of the dummy you construct in my place.
>>My take is that all sentient beings have some level of rights
>>and thus ethical constraints on how they may be treated by
>>virtue of being sentient beings. It does not matter on what
>>sort of strata they are implemented.
>>
>
> Why? A virtual being on a substrata has no more real existence here than
> we would on a higher meta level. If our world is a simulation, then it
> is rather obvious that the ethics of our creators are that our lives are
> of no real consequence to them, other than as 'soul' points in some
> cosmic game. We are no more 'real' to them than the average street
> mutant is to a Duke Nukem player.
>
If you believe that then I certainly don't want you to have the
keys to the computational matrix housing perhaps billions of
sentients a bit down the line. If the beings are as sentient as
you and I and as capable of experiencing pain, fear and so on
then treating them brutally is exactly equivalent to treating
beings on your own strata brutally. If such a level is not
"real" then neither is this one and neither are you. If we
discovered that we are in fact within a VR running at a
different level will you personally believe you don't really
exist or will you be just as real as ever?
>
>>>Lets say, for example, that I develop a simulation game for people
>>>called Slavemaster(tm), where the player can live out a simulated life
>>>on the computer as the master of slaves on a plantation, in a factory or
>>>dungeon or mine, or bordello. The player can select the characteristics
>>>of their slaves, including skin color. Black players could make a world
>>>where whitey was enslaved, Chinese can have Japanese slaves, and Scots
>>>can have English serf maids to deflower as they wish.
>>>
>>>In no way do I, or any player actually wish to life that life in
>>>reality, and abor enslaving real people. Is this wrong? Why?
>>>
>>>
>>If your slaves are sentient, feeling entities then it is wrong
>>to enslave them just as in the strata we normal think of as real.
>>
>
> Characters is a work of fiction are sentient within the construct of the
> plot and setting. That does not make them real in our universe. Authors
> are under no obligation to treat their characters kindly.
>
If you create real beings, which we talk about doing all the
time here, then there is no way that it is ok to abuse them just
because you created them. Look at it like this. If you create
a sentient biological creature in this world I think you would
agree that it is wrong to abuse it. How does it become right
just because you create your sentient living creatures within a
VR? If it does become right there then when some of us upload
is it alright for the non-uploads to consider us simply
simulations of people who did themselves in in a most strange
fashion and enslave us or simply terminate us? If not then why
is it ok if the being within the computational matrix never had
a biological life? There seems to be a bit of a double standard
and contradiction here to say the least.
>
>>>But is bottling up those primitive and potentially dangerous parts of
>>>ourselves really healthy? The leftie pshrink world says that people
>>>
>>It is a popular myth that we must give an outlet to such in
>>order to stay healthy. There are studies that give evidence
>>that "safely" expressing anger and rage (as opposed to
>>therapeutically dealing with it) increase anger and rage
>>experienced rather than dissipating it like a safety valve. Not
>>expressing some of our primitive and dangerous parts does not
>>have to make us unhealthy either. With training these impulses
>>can be overcome and/or their energy channeled in ways more in
>>our interest.
>>
>
> What studies, pray tell, are these? I have seen some, and they are all
> nothing but unscientific case studies of specific criminals. Purely
> anecdotal evidence with no statistical comparison or causal correlation.
>
If I have time I will dig them up. What studies do you have
that prove the opposite any better btw?
>>>are first person shooter games any different from you and I swatting at
>>>each other with foam bats, or couples playing out bondage scenarios?
>>>
>>>
>>Bondage scenarios have many aspects, most of them not
>>particularly violent in any really negative way. Now, I have
>>known a little about that scene in my checkered past. There are
>>things learned there. There are also a lot of people who get
>>addicted to the endorphin high. There are situations where some
>>such actions actually do lead to learning new ways of dealing
>>with the raw energies and may uncover things deeper behind the
>>rage and energy. It is not a complete either or. But it is one
>>thing to do such working out in a therapeutic setting and
>>another, I believe, to go fragging away just to get your jollies
>>or probably worse still, because you feel powerless about some
>>real world situations. The point of exercises with the bats is
>>not enjoyment of the rush of battling.
>>
>
> But SMBD activities are causing real pain to real people, yet you claim
> that these activities are 'acceptable' but completely unreal virtual
> violence is not?
>
The are consensual arrangements for very defined purposes. That
is a lot different from saying you can abuse and even kill other
sentients without their consent if they happen to be implemented
on a different strata.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:48 MST