From: Vladimir Nesov (robotact@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 08 2009 - 19:06:44 MDT
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I understood Matt's original position that we would choose A (with the
> caveat that there is no lasting inexplicable physical damage) because the
> consciousness with no memory of the experience is indistinguishable from
> having not had the experience at all. A memory of fading intensity is still
> much more traumatic than no memory.
>
> I think it is important to approach this scenario without emotional
> investment in the actual torture experience. We should discuss only the
> states Matt proposed: Tortured with no memory (and I added no evidence) vs.
> No torture and vividly detailed memory of torture.
>
> Along the same line of thought as the crush-your-clone teleporter: Having
> been told that you are in the group that has received implanted memory of
> torture, you may rid yourself of by actually experiencing the torture you
> already remember (perhaps the memory erasure drugs require this) - Do you
> willingly retain your false memory or voluntarily accept torture as the cost
> of relief from those memories?
>
Now this is a dangerous path. Don't substitute the reality with a map,
don't wirehead yourself into thinking that it's sufficient to believe
a lie to it become equivalent to the truth. If you care about
experience of torture, or about torture itself, you should act against
them, not against their symptoms.
What if you create a simulation in which you torture and murder 10^100
people? Does it become OK if you erase all the evidence?
-- Vladimir Nesov http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT