Oh, I don’t know that. What would remain of you if you could download your mind into a computer? Who would you be if you were no longer affected by the level of serotonin or adrenaline you are producing, or if pheromones didn’t affect you? Once you subtract the biological from the human, I imagine what remains to be pure person. There should be no difference between that person and one who was created intentionally or one that evolved in a different species, beyond their personal experiences (controlling for the effects of their physiology).
I don’t have any disagreement with Eliezer’s description of how our biology molded our growth, but I see no reason why we should hold on to that biology forever. I could be wrong, however. It may not be possible to be a person without certain biological-like reactions. I can certainly see how this would be the case for people in early learning stages of development, particularly if your goal is to mold that person into a friendly one. Even then, though, I think it would be beneficial to keep those parts to the bare minimum required to function.
What would remain of you if you could download your mind into a computer?
That depends on the resolution of the simulation. Wouldn’t you agree?
Once you subtract the biological from the human, I imagine what remains to be pure person.
I think you’re using the word “biological” to denote some kind of unnatural category.
I don’t have any disagreement with Eliezer’s description of how our biology molded our growth, but I see no reason why we should hold on to that biology forever.
The reasons you see for why any of us “should” do anything almost certainly have biologically engineered goals behind them in some way or another. What of self-preservation?
I meant this kind of unnatural category. I don’t quite know what you mean by “biological” in this context. A high-resolution neurological simulation might not require any physical carbon atoms, but the simulated mind would presumably still act according to all the same “biological” drives.
Oh, I don’t know that. What would remain of you if you could download your mind into a computer? Who would you be if you were no longer affected by the level of serotonin or adrenaline you are producing, or if pheromones didn’t affect you? Once you subtract the biological from the human, I imagine what remains to be pure person. There should be no difference between that person and one who was created intentionally or one that evolved in a different species, beyond their personal experiences (controlling for the effects of their physiology).
I don’t have any disagreement with Eliezer’s description of how our biology molded our growth, but I see no reason why we should hold on to that biology forever. I could be wrong, however. It may not be possible to be a person without certain biological-like reactions. I can certainly see how this would be the case for people in early learning stages of development, particularly if your goal is to mold that person into a friendly one. Even then, though, I think it would be beneficial to keep those parts to the bare minimum required to function.
That depends on the resolution of the simulation. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think you’re using the word “biological” to denote some kind of unnatural category.
The reasons you see for why any of us “should” do anything almost certainly have biologically engineered goals behind them in some way or another. What of self-preservation?
Not unnatural, obviously, but a contaminant to intelligence. Manure is a great fertilizer, but you wash it off before you use the vegetable.
I meant this kind of unnatural category. I don’t quite know what you mean by “biological” in this context. A high-resolution neurological simulation might not require any physical carbon atoms, but the simulated mind would presumably still act according to all the same “biological” drives.