by Caracasus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:34 am
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:36 am
by Caracasus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:39 am
Australian Republic wrote:I LOVE the forth option, but don't see why the rest would be a matter for a leader. If the issue is about whetehr or not to legalise it, this would be done by some senator far lower ranking than the leader. Unless you're totaliterian AND autocratic, but don't think that applies to too many nations
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:37 am
Caracasus wrote:Australian Republic wrote:I LOVE the forth option, but don't see why the rest would be a matter for a leader. If the issue is about whetehr or not to legalise it, this would be done by some senator far lower ranking than the leader. Unless you're totaliterian AND autocratic, but don't think that applies to too many nations
Yeah I must admit I wrote it from the fourth option back. The first one is asking for more funding, the second to outlaw it (and let's face it there's more than a few issues with NS that allow you to act like an autocratic state even if you're not). The third is more about bringing it under government control. Perhaps I will make the distinctions clearer.
by Caracasus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:00 am
Australian Republic wrote:Caracasus wrote:
Yeah I must admit I wrote it from the fourth option back. The first one is asking for more funding, the second to outlaw it (and let's face it there's more than a few issues with NS that allow you to act like an autocratic state even if you're not). The third is more about bringing it under government control. Perhaps I will make the distinctions clearer.
If you wanna use, why don't you just write an issue about who will run the country when you take a holiday, or something? Actually, that would be a biprilliant idea-you need a break, so what happens then
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:02 am
Caracasus wrote:Australian Republic wrote:If you wanna use, why don't you just write an issue about who will run the country when you take a holiday, or something? Actually, that would be a biprilliant idea-you need a break, so what happens then
Mostly I wanted to explore the "electronic afterlife" companies that are developing at the moment. Perhaps I should add more philosophical possibilities.
by Caracasus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:29 am
by Trotterdam » Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:19 pm
Wait, what?Caracasus wrote:the "electronic afterlife" companies that are developing at the moment
by Caracasus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:50 pm
Trotterdam wrote:Wait, what?Caracasus wrote:the "electronic afterlife" companies that are developing at the moment
Technology isn't nearly at the level that uploading a faithful representation of one's brain into a computer would be possible.
NationStates does have some futuristic technology in its issues, particularly AI - and if you can make an AI from scratch, making an AI copy of an existing human may also be within your capabilities - but I feel that defeating death is a really big deal, and should not be treated lightly just because it'd make for one interesting issue.
by Trotterdam » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:15 pm
by Caracasus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:19 pm
by Luna Amore » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:01 am
by Caracasus » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:34 am
by Trotterdam » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:26 am
Honestly, if people's average social media posts are so shallow that nobody would notice if they were replaced with bots, the most relevant lesson I would take from this is to deepen my loathing for social media.Caracasus wrote:Indeed. At best these companies are run by well-meaning fools, at worst by scam artists.
by Caracasus » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:39 am
Trotterdam wrote:Honestly, if people's average social media posts are so shallow that nobody would notice if they were replaced with bots, the most relevant lesson I would take from this is to deepen my loathing for social media.Caracasus wrote:Indeed. At best these companies are run by well-meaning fools, at worst by scam artists.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:08 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:10 am
by Caracasus » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:14 am
Australian Republic wrote:Option 3 effect-change dead to deceased. Option 4-I don't get it. It goes without saying that the "real" person is the living one
by Watuhuru » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:20 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:21 am
Caracasus wrote:Australian Republic wrote:Option 3 effect-change dead to deceased. Option 4-I don't get it. It goes without saying that the "real" person is the living one
Does it? Depends on what you mean by "real". It's sort of like the Ship of Theseus thought experiment.
Theseus has a fine ship, however he decides to replace parts of it occasionally. So he removes the mast, chucks it in the sea and replaces it. Same with the sails, rigging, all the planks from the hull. Eventually he has replaced, and chucked in the sea, every part of the origonal ship.
The current carries these parts (all of them, mind) to an island where a shipwrecked man lives. He's an expert boat builder, so over the years that Theseus chucks out and replaces parts, he collects them and puts them back together.
Which is the original ship?
by Caracasus » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:25 am
Australian Republic wrote:Caracasus wrote:
Does it? Depends on what you mean by "real". It's sort of like the Ship of Theseus thought experiment.
Theseus has a fine ship, however he decides to replace parts of it occasionally. So he removes the mast, chucks it in the sea and replaces it. Same with the sails, rigging, all the planks from the hull. Eventually he has replaced, and chucked in the sea, every part of the origonal ship.
The current carries these parts (all of them, mind) to an island where a shipwrecked man lives. He's an expert boat builder, so over the years that Theseus chucks out and replaces parts, he collects them and puts them back together.
Which is the original ship?
Yes, I have heard that paradox and have heard it used on organ transplants, but in this situation, it doesn't apply.
Say for example, the uploader's AI posted "I love peanut butter", but in reality, the person hates peanut butter, then obviously the "real" status would be "I love peanut butter
by Watuhuru » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:26 am
Australian Republic wrote:Yes, I have heard that paradox and have heard it used on organ transplants, but in this situation, it doesn't apply.
Say for example, the uploader's AI posted "I love peanut butter", but in reality, the person hates peanut butter, then obviously the "real" status would be "I love peanut butter
by Caracasus » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:29 am
by Watuhuru » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:30 am
Caracasus wrote:Would it? What if they loved peanut butter before they were involved in a serious accident that affected part of their brain - following the accident they now can't stand the smell of peanuts. Who is the real person then - the one before the crash or the one after? Does the new artificial intelligence ghost exist in its own right?
by Caracasus » Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:32 am
Watuhuru wrote:Caracasus wrote:Would it? What if they loved peanut butter before they were involved in a serious accident that affected part of their brain - following the accident they now can't stand the smell of peanuts. Who is the real person then - the one before the crash or the one after? Does the new artificial intelligence ghost exist in its own right?
Well, now we are getting down to the details. Do theses AIs have true free will, even if that free will is based on the personality and memories of another person. If they do, then yes, they are people in their own rights. They are capable of making their own personal decisions and have their own likes, dislikes, and may sometimes be completely random. Of course, I could of just been describing Sims, so who knows.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement