I am interested. When you say that the simulation would end in a war, do you mean economic, actual warfare, etc?
Also would it be more accurate to have the voting blocks be the ones to propose a given policy?
Sly
Karma: 419
How is it magical? Or extra-physical?
All it requires is that the copy that survives is not the me that got annihilated in the grenade. I do not think this requires magic.
Like I said though, I may be misunderstanding something. In that case I would appreciate it if it were explained better.
I think that I can be consistent with charging you with attempted murder.
In your scenario, if the grenade is not in my favor; this particular instance of me will be dead. The fact that a bunch of copies collect $100 is of little value to the copy that my subjective experience occupied.
For instance, if Omega came up to me right now and said that he just slew some copies of me in other lines, than it is unclear how that event has affected me. Likewise if I die, and Omega tells my other copies, it seems like it is only this subjective branch that suffers.
So because the grenade can affect the current branch that I experience, I can object.
I think anyway, I may have misunderstood everything.
Also: I was very surprised to be the subject of a post. It has been interesting. =)
EDIT: Wouldn’t the grenade thought experiment be more accurate if the grenade only killed or gave out $100 to copies when thrown at me? The fact that it interacts with me and not just copies of me is where I get a disconnect.
I would place 0 value on a copy that does not interact with me. This might be odd, but a copy of me that is non-interacting is indistinguishable from a copy of someone else that is non-interacting. Why does it matter that it is a copy of me?
I am interested in participating but unsure of my ability to do so. Consider me a tentative intention yes on participating.
The overeating/lack of exercise had to do with causes of morbid obesity in general.
I understand that this person has started to walk as a means of counteracting the lack of exercise, or are you referring to something else I may be misreading?
And yes, I understand that adjusting food intake is non trivial. How am I being glib? And how is that relevant to the metaphor?
Morbid obesity does not just spring up on you, your weight gradually changes and your eating patterns likely get worse. It is not at all like a sudden patch of oil.
It would be accurate to describe the situation in terms of a car driver not putting any maintenance into their car. Eventually the car starts to make strange noises. Later on still, the engine light comes on. As years go by, the car is driving slower and slower. Are we really surprised when the engine stops working altogether?
I think I see what you are saying here.
So non-obvious side effects of the descision are non voluntary. Colliding from speeding and obesity from overeating/lack of exercise would be arguable non obvious as well.
I would say however that the metaphor with the car may be more accurate if the driver was repeatedly skidding into mailboxes and other small things (apparently the ground has many oil patches), so that when he later on collided with the guard rail it was a rather obvious end result.
Ah true. I had something like brain cancer in mind when I wrote this. But yes, lung cancer in smokers would also fall into the second category.
A very interesting article that made me think. I am not sure exactly where my thoughts line up with yours, so this will be primarily a means of clarifying what I think.
It seems to me that the entire purpose of framing obesity as a disease is a means to deflect the “blame” for obesity elsewhere. The disease-ness alone may not be the entire issue.
For example:
Person A bothers morbidly obese person B about trying to lose weight.
Person B says that obesity is a disease and not her fault.
Person A objects to obesity being a disease, in their mind person B is very much responsible for their obesity.
I do not think their dispute is about whether obesity is a disease but whether person B has obesity as a result of her own choices and actions.
To clarify:
Cancer patients are not responsible for cancer as the cause of cancer is separate from decisions that you make.
Yet we would say that someone with several STDs would be responsible if they were going around having frequent unprotected sex with several partners. The disease is a result of their own actions.
Obesity seems to fit more into the second example then the first.. Whereas even if it is a disease, society holds the person responsible for the disease.
What do you mean by: his condition is not voluntary? Because he recently made the descision to walk everywhere, yet still remains obese his condition is not voluntary?
I am not sure that follows.
“He remembered the pride filled glow that had swamped Gyoko’s face and he wondered again at the bewildering gullibility of people. How baffling it was that even the most cunning and clever people would frequently see only what they wanted to see, and would rarely look beyond the thinnest of facades. Or they would ignore reality, dismissing it as the facade. And then, when their whole world fell to pieces and they were on their knees slitting their bellies or cutting their throats, or cast out into the freezing world, they would tear their topknots or rend their clothes and bewail their karma, blaming gods or kami or luck or their lords or husbands or vassals—anything or anyone—but never themselves.”
-Shogun
Hi.
I often feel like I have very little to add. Hence the lurking. Also I only recently finished with most of the sequences.
I do not understand this one, care to explain?
How many know about this, and are games such as the lottery, and sports betting still viable?
Lottery numbers / stock changes seem like the first impression answer to me.
I would assume that Omega telling you his prediction was already factored into the Omega Prediction F.
I suppose those two points rely on assumptions I made about the theoretical AIs behavior. I was thinking the AI acts in ways to optimize it’s release chance. If it does not do this, then yes those points are problematic.
I laugh and leave the room, thinking to myself that maybe the AI is not that smart after all. Returning with a hammer to joyfully turn this unfriendly AI into scrap metal.
A couple points that influence this reaction:
1 - Unless the AI has access to my brain it cannot create perfect copies of me. Furthermore, the computation required to do this seems rather intense for the first AI created, running on human made hardware.
2 - It has no good reason to actually act on the threat. Either I choose to let it out or I do not; either way, it is a waste of computation to then make the simulations. My descision has already been made.
3- Assuming the first two points are invalid, if the AI can make a perfect copy of me it would know that my response to this question is one of destruction. I am not a fan of threats. The AI does not make the threat in the first place. An AI with this capability can choose a more compelling argument.
I find this idea very appealing; although like you, not for the sake of the singularity, but for my own entertainment.
I found this:
The minor step from not having a subject click and having a subject click is enormous.
To be very true.
Many times in my classes I have barely grasped what the professor was saying throughout the year only to click the subject at a later time when a fellow student explained it to me in a way that grokked. Whenever this happens, I feel like I have learned more in that brief period then in the entire class before then.
Another thing to think about was that Hitchens was in a debate. The Christians in the audience that he is trying to convince will not be charitable.