From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 02:57:13 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> om> <3D0B1A1B.4010700@objectent.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>
> Because you are communicating YOUR emotional state, not the players, and
> not the AI characters on the screen.
>
Incorrect. I am tired of attempting to get through to you on
this one.
>
>>>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?
>>
>
> You were expressing an emotional response on your part to simulated
> violence.
>
Incorrect again. Good bye. Thanks for playing.
>
>>
>>
>>>>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?
>>
>
> I am certainly real *to me*. I am willing to entertain the high
> probability that you are real *to me* also based on your similarity to
> me. Lara Croft, while bearing a high resemblance to the female form, and
> moving, communicating, and functioning in her virtual universe much like
> a human being, I do not accept as real for the simple reasons that a)
> she can't exist in the material world, and b) she doesn't learn, doesn't
> grow, and can't reprogram herself, as well as c) any woman with a breast
> larger than her braincase either has a fake breast or a fake brain (or
> both).
>
>
>>>>>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.
>>
>
> Once again you fail in your logic by already assuming a being is real.
> As I said, *within the confines of a virtual universe*, any AI is
> absolutely as real, and no more real, than a character in a novel.
>
Even in a virtual universe (which we might soon inhabit
post-upload btw) if a being is sentient it should be granted
rights because of that.
>
>>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.
>>
>
> There is, but you have yet to understand it, at least so far as you've
> communicated here.
>
Then explain it without being a fucking snob who think I'm just
being silly.
>
>>>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?
>>
>
> I don't need studies. The common cultural wisdom is that 'getting it out
> of your system' is the best medicine. Since that is the default state, I
> need not prove it any more than you need an equation to prove that an
> apple falls. Your position is the absurd one, and therefore is the one
> that needs scientific support.
>
I see. You don't need studies. I need studies. You'll go on
the cultural wisdom. I present an argument. You
condenscendingly dismiss it. Sorry. I don't choose to play
with you.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:51 MST