From: Metaqualia (metaqualia@mynichi.com)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 12:04:42 MDT
> As any blind person can tell you, just because one doesn't have a certain
> modality it doesn't mean they have to refuse the information offered by
it.
A blind person who has never seen won't have a clue about vision but they
can still do visual analysis with mathematics and with breille code
displays.
A person without qualia is not only unable to feel anything, but has no
reason whatsoever to admit the existence or anything beyond straight
physicality.
> What I mean is the following: if someone builds a CV machine and the
> extrapolation works properly (otherwise all bets are off) it will
> (correctly) find out that we value subjective experience, and that whether
> qualia exist or not as primitives is not so very important, but what
matters
> is our volition about them. This is why CV is compatible with
> positive-qualia-maximization, assuming that's what we really want, which I
> doubt.
I understand what you mean, as I explained I don't see that CV will
necessarily get to qualia even if that is what we want, besides I doubt the
technical feasibility of CV.
> Making it non-sentient (thus presumably not self-centered) and making it
> follow the CV of humans is a safer bet, since I doubt very much humans
want
> their matter rearranged into "more useful" patterns for now.
So explain to me how a non-sentient (if that's even possible) being will
believe us about having these nonphysical experiences ;)
If I didn't have qualia and heard such nonsense I would turn you into a
little mountain of paperclips in no time
> As far as I'm concerned, we have no reason to believe that animal
suffering
> (if that's not a misnoma) is at all important in the big scheme of things,
> certainly not compared to, say, survival under a runaway self-centered
SAI.
I disagree. There is no big scheme of things that is more important then the
quality of any one sentient's qualia stream.
> An end to consciousness except by a self-centered SAI, or even an
> unacceptable chance of such? Utterly immoral too.
We don't have to choose between the two!
> OK, we've seen your capacity for mystic-sounding statements. We are now
> awed. You must really know what you're talking about.
There was a point to using that analogy.
> > you are talking about the third person interpretation. The first person
> > interpretation is what I am concerned with.
> And it is substantially less important.
why would it be less important?
> or how vision works. A CV optimizing-process doesn't need to experience
> qualia in order to understand their place in the collective volition it
see example above
mq
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT