Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
Fifteen Minutes into the Future

Love’s Labour Lost: An act of desperation leads to a bad law

Health Care Good, System Bad

A Note About Our Comments Policy

Do Secularists Contribute to Social Divisiveness?

Why We Need Technology Ratchets

Pushing Back Against the Methane Tipping Point

What “Irrelevance” Means and What It Doesn’t

Are atheists and liberals more “intelligent”?

No Consensus on Future of Nation-State


comments

Marshall Barnes on 'IEET Readers See China as Future Power' (Mar 11, 2010)

Sedicious on 'Health Care Good, System Bad' (Mar 11, 2010)

CygnusX1 on 'Do Secularists Contribute to Social Divisiveness?' (Mar 11, 2010)

Dave Studeman on 'Health Care Good, System Bad' (Mar 11, 2010)

veronica on 'Are atheists and liberals more "intelligent"?' (Mar 11, 2010)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

IEET > Rights > Personhood > Vision > Virtuality > Directors > George Dvorsky

PrintEmailpermalink • (1) Comments • (15) Hits •  subscribeShare on facebook Stumble This




Welcome to the Machine, Part 1: The ethics of simulated beings


George Dvorsky
George Dvorsky
Sentient Developments

Posted: Apr 9, 2009

Without a doubt some of my favorite video games of all time have been those that involve simulations, including SimCity and The Sims. When I play these games I fancy myself a demigod, managing and manipulating the slew of variables made available to me; with the click of a mouse I can alter the environment and adjust the nature of the simulated inhabitants themselves.

There’s no question that these games are becoming evermore realistic and sophisticated. A few years ago, for example, a plug-in was developed for The Sims allowing the virtual inhabitants to entertain themselves by playing none other than SimCity itself. When I first heard about this I was struck with the vision of Russian Matrioshka nesting dolls, but instead of dolls I saw simulations within simulations within simulations.


And then I remembered good old Copernicus and his principle of mediocrity: We should never assume that our own particular place in space and time is somehow special or unique. Thinking of the simulation Matrioshka, I reflected on the possibility that we might be Sims ourselves: Why should we assume that we are at the primary level of reality?

Indeed, considering the radical potential for computing power in the decades to come, we may be residing somewhere deep within the Matrioshka.

Consequently, we are all faced with a myriad of existential, philosophical and ethical questions. If we are merely simulants, what does it mean to be alive? Are our lives somehow lessened or even devoid of meaning? Should we interact with the world and our fellow simulants differently than before we knew we were living in a simulation? How are we to devise moral and ethical codes of conduct?

In other words, how are we to live?

Well, there’s no reason to get too excited over this. It’s a bit of speculative metaphysics that doesn’t really change anything—assuming we are in a simulation, we should live virtually the same way as if we were living in the “real” world.

That is unless, of course, those running the simulation expect something from us. Which means we need to figure out what it is exactly we’re supposed to do…


George Dvorsky serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. George is the Director of Operations for Commune Media, an advertising and marketing firm that specializes in marketing science. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.
PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


My initial reaction is that the motivation for this problem, as you've stated it, is a little like seeing a photograph in another photograph and then wondering if you were merely a photograph!

First off, I'm assuming that I'm in what you suspect may be a "simulation" and two things I'm very certain about is that I can feel pain and I don't like it. I also assume, although I can't prove, that others feel pain. Therefore, even if we can't figure out what exactly is going on, we still have a pretty good foundation for some sort of ethics based on avoiding suffering, like utilitarianism. I would also argue that the existence of pain in this world is incompatible with the idea of us being "merely simulants" in the same sense that a video game character is a "mere simulant".

Now, assuming that something like functionalism is true and that being a "simulant" makes sense, you've basically stated a version of creationism where the creator has decided to be apparently silent when it comes to his/her expectations. The silence assumption must be true from at least someone's perspective since it wouldn't make much sense for you to say that we need to figure out something that everyone has already figured out.

Therefore, someone to whom he has remained silent (assuming they even care) should probably:

a) Look for indirect evidence of his/her purpose in the simulation itself.
b) Seek out chosen people who he has decided to communicate his will to.
c) Seek to become one of the chosen who he communicates directly to.

Welcome to Theism!

Of course you've also left open the possibility of the creator being himself a "simulant". This could be seen as a restatement of the gnostic idea of a Demiurge or even some Christian ideas regarding Satan. The natural extension of this idea is that if we become capable of creating simulants like ourselves, then we actually become a sort of inauthentic god, or Demiurge, since we aren't ourselves certain about or in control of the absolute reality that enslaves us. So the question is then flipped on it's head. What do we expect from our simulants and how do we convey our will to them?

Given the fact that our major selling point for creating these simulants so far seems to be variations on either "just to see what happens" or to "make them our virtual slaves", it strikes me that we wouldn't be very good Demiurges. This in turn could come in conflict with someone in our own chain of creators. For some ideas about what might happen next see any apocalyptic text.

So, all this seems to imply the need for some sort of ethics based on the expectations of the creator at the highest level of control.

Welcome to Monotheism!

-jcs



YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: What is Mindware?

Previous entry: Raising the Issue of Asian Ethics

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376