There are certainly conceptions of Buddhism in which the goal is to eliminate sentience, with the complicated meditation part being necessary because if you straightforward died you would just reincarnate. I agree this destroys moral value (cont)
-
-
Replying to @slatestarcodex @robinhanson
I think there may be other conceptions of enlightenment that are different than this, although Buddhists have done a terrible job of explaining them. If they are different than this, I think they may be worthwhile and preserve moral value. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/18/book-review-mastering-the-core-teachings-of-the-buddha/ … for more
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @robinhanson
In general, I think you're probably operating on too coarse a level here. Hearing a beautiful symphony and taking heroin might both "activate the reward center", but maybe not in the exact same way, and maybe doing other things too. Not hypocritical to like one, hate other.
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex
If it’s all complex & some cuts of default net good & others bad, I don’t see how u can confidently say em cuts will be bad. Only a generic fear that cuts might be bad. But all change MIGHT be bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robinhanson
I think I am much more confident about the moral value of specific human-comprehensible actions than changes to brain networks. When you describe the changes you think ems will have, I judge them more negatively than some vague alteration of default network.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex
You said you feared lost moral value from ems "neurologically incapable of having their minds drift off while on the job". As default net manages such mind wandering, that sounds pretty close to reducing default net influence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @slatestarcodex
Are you saying there's no relation between mind drifting at work you fear ems losing and mind wandering in meditation that spiritualists dislike, so that your fear of loss of the former is not in conflict with spiritualists' celebration of losing the later?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robinhanson
Thanks for explaining; didn't understand your objection before. Thoughts turned out too long for Twitter, so seehttps://pastebin.com/NiSbT8g8
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex
In foreseeable near term, we only be talking about shrinking some parts & using them less, not complete elimination. More like a skilled meditator that one incapable of mind wandering. And most work has much complexity, often even more than in leisure. Longer run v. hard to see.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @slatestarcodex
Most any trend looks unsavory when projected to a logical extreme. But forecasting abilities usually fade into fog long before extremes would be reached. In Age of Em I try to limit forecasts to before the fog.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Seems like economic forces support making the trend as extreme as possible. And having access to human minds as code is such a major discontinuity that hard to see why we should expect changes to be gradual. See section at http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/28/book-review-age-of-em/ … starting "But we can go further"
-
-
Replying to @slatestarcodex
That is the section of your post I quoted above & in my blog post. It is complex to figure out which way econ demand pushes, and also to estimate details of complex costs of change. This change may be fast, because all change will be fast.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.