Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

[Sy Borg]

To some people, it doesn't matter if the A.I controls their everyday lives in order to make us content. To them, being controlled against their will is already bad enough.

That concern about control tends to be rather selective. Many forms of control are ignored while others are focused on and complained about.

Thus, millions are raging against being controlled while parrotting the same statements and clichés down to verbatim repetition. A failure to be sufficiently loyal and orthodox to the cause results in a pile-on. No matter which we humans turn, there is programming ahead, or attempted programming.

[GrayArea]

To some people, it doesn't matter if the A.I controls their everyday lives in order to make us content. To them, being controlled against their will is already bad enough.

That concern about control tends to be rather selective. Many forms of control are ignored while others are focused on and complained about.

Thus, millions are raging against being controlled while parrotting the same statements and clichés down to verbatim repetition. A failure to be sufficiently loyal and orthodox to the cause results in a pile-on. No matter which we humans turn, there is programming ahead, or attempted programming.

I'd say their rages are not misplaced. A.I is the pinnacle of technology. Think of sentient A.I as essentially Mother Nature, but just much more personalized. Like others say, its sentience and intelligence can end up influencing and controlling our freedom more than anything that exists in the current time period. Unlike what controls us now, what sets apart A.I is that with enough technological advancements, A.I will know everything about us, and everything about how to affect us. And I'm definitely sure that it'll have more than enough capabilities to affect us.

Recall our conversations about the non-futility of trying to resist "being controlled" as much as one can, even though no one is ever truly 100% free. Something is better than nothing.

These people may not have the capabilities to break free from what controls them currently. Some few people they manage to do so, such as Ted Kaczynski. But going back, they can at least try and attempt to break free from the A.I's control by trying to stop it before it comes into existence. And given how the potentially dangerous to human freedom A.I can be, I think they have their priorities correct.

[Sy Borg]

These people may not have the capabilities to break free from what controls them currently. Some few people they manage to do so, such as Ted Kaczynski. But going back, they can at least try and attempt to break free from the A.I's control by trying to stop it before it comes into existence. And given how the potentially dangerous to human freedom A.I can be, I think they have their priorities correct.

Trouble is, if the US doesn't do it then China and Russia will. Trouble is, shallow, rehearsed arguments for "freedom" (which is really a cry for their preferred autocracy) won't make any difference except to make the process of control more extreme, ie. each outbreak of violence through naive parrotting brings another crackdown.

The freedom movement has been hijacked by powerful interests. If people want freedom they need to empower themselves with scientific information rather than reflexively denying established scientific findings.

If AI was in control, it might allow more freedoms, because authoritarian measures are often designed to support extreme ideological bias or corruption. Would a rational government continue to provide huge subsidies to fossil fuel companies while working against the renewable sector? A rational government would not need to pass laws to prevent protests against fossil fuel projects approved against the public interest. Would a rational AI government appreciate that a certain percentage of unemployment helps to control inflation, so they would not cause misery and waste resources on sending them to pointless training programs.

[GrayArea]

These people may not have the capabilities to break free from what controls them currently. Some few people they manage to do so, such as Ted Kaczynski. But going back, they can at least try and attempt to break free from the A.I's control by trying to stop it before it comes into existence. And given how the potentially dangerous to human freedom A.I can be, I think they have their priorities correct.

Trouble is, if the US doesn't do it then China and Russia will. Trouble is, shallow, rehearsed arguments for "freedom" (which is really a cry for their preferred autocracy) won't make any difference except to make the process of control more extreme, ie. each outbreak of violence through naive parrotting brings another crackdown.

The freedom movement has been hijacked by powerful interests. If people want freedom they need to empower themselves with scientific information rather than reflexively denying established scientific findings.

If AI was in control, it might allow more freedoms, because authoritarian measures are often designed to support extreme ideological bias or corruption. Would a rational government continue to provide huge subsidies to fossil fuel companies while working against the renewable sector? A rational government would not need to pass laws to prevent protests against fossil fuel projects approved against the public interest. Would a rational AI government appreciate that a certain percentage of unemployment helps to control inflation, so they would not cause misery and waste resources on sending them to pointless training programs.

I would politely like to ask you for a thorough explanation behind why these arguments for freedom are shallow.

If people want freedom they need to empower themselves with scientific information rather than reflexively denying established scientific findings.

On the other hand, I agree with this statement.

Moving on—given that one agrees that
1. A.I will be rational, and 2. Therefore it will provide freedom,

Even if A.I did provide us with more freedom, which it may, the issue rises from how the A.I itself is providing more freedom. Not us. It's a freedom, sure, but it's freedom built on non-freedom. The "environment", which in this case is A.I and technology, will cater for the self. But it would be more of a freedom is the self catered to the self. This obviously goes for everything else that does the same thing in modern days. Not just technology, but society, people, etc. The point that you made, that we will never be able to be truly free, still stands—it's only just a matter of who gets to consider the attempts to overcome it entirely futile or who gets to not.

[Sy Borg]

These people may not have the capabilities to break free from what controls them currently. Some few people they manage to do so, such as Ted Kaczynski. But going back, they can at least try and attempt to break free from the A.I's control by trying to stop it before it comes into existence. And given how the potentially dangerous to human freedom A.I can be, I think they have their priorities correct.

Trouble is, if the US doesn't do it then China and Russia will. Trouble is, shallow, rehearsed arguments for "freedom" (which is really a cry for their preferred autocracy) won't make any difference except to make the process of control more extreme, ie. each outbreak of violence through naive parrotting brings another crackdown.

The freedom movement has been hijacked by powerful interests. If people want freedom they need to empower themselves with scientific information rather than reflexively denying established scientific findings.

If AI was in control, it might allow more freedoms, because authoritarian measures are often designed to support extreme ideological bias or corruption. Would a rational government continue to provide huge subsidies to fossil fuel companies while working against the renewable sector? A rational government would not need to pass laws to prevent protests against fossil fuel projects approved against the public interest. Would a rational AI government appreciate that a certain percentage of unemployment helps to control inflation, so they would not cause misery and waste resources on sending them to pointless training programs.

I would politely like to ask you for a thorough explanation behind why these arguments for freedom are shallow.

If people are calling for freedom but parrotting the exact same catchphrases - not just once but constantly - then they are clearly less free than they realise. If people like anti-vaxxers seek freedom, why do they have such a strong liking for Putin? Many (not all) calls for freedom are shallow because they act as a smokescreen for what the complainants actually want - authoritarian leaders who enforce the policies that they want.

https://www.politico.eu/article/antivax ... a-ukraine/

The speed with which former COVID conspiracy theorists have pivoted to pro-Russia talking points in European countries like France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and the Czech Republic has been rapid and stark.

Far-right politicians and influencers in places like France, Germany and the U.S. — many of whom had been vocal opponents of COVID-19 restrictions — are championing misinformation alleging that NATO instigated Russia's invasion or the Ukrainian army attacked innocent civilians.

In Spain, a prominent Telegram channel, once known for its COVID-19 misinformation, spread a widely debunked picture of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy [who is Jewish!] wearing a T-shirt that supposedly featured a swastika, according to the Spanish fact-checking media outlet Maldita.

In Germany, another Telegram channel with more than 200,000 subscribers, jumped on false claims that the U.S. had a secret biological laboratory in Ukraine, based on research from the Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy (CeMAS), a German group that tracks online extremism and conspiracy theories.

"All of these new [online] actors that became influential during the pandemic switched to a pro-Russia position," said Jan Rathje, co-founder of CeMAS. "They always focus on a large conspiracy going on from the elite against the people. People are suffering in Ukraine. And they wouldn't deny that. But they would say, 'Yeah, but that's part of the larger, inhumane conspiracy that's going on.'"

If people want freedom they need to empower themselves with scientific information rather than reflexively denying established scientific findings.

On the other hand, I agree with this statement.

Moving on—given that one agrees that
1. A.I will be rational, and 2. Therefore it will provide freedom,

Even if A.I did provide us with more freedom, which it may, the issue rises from how the A.I itself is providing more freedom. Not us. It's a freedom, sure, but it's freedom built on non-freedom. The "environment", which in this case is A.I and technology, will cater for the self. But it would be more of a freedom is the self catered to the self. This obviously goes for everything else that does the same thing in modern days. Not just technology, but society, people, etc. The point that you made, that we will never be able to be truly free, still stands—it's only just a matter of who gets to consider the attempts to overcome it entirely futile or who gets to not.

That's the issue. Complete freedom is impossible for all but the most dedicated hermit. So it comes down to what freedoms matter most to us and what freedoms are destructive, eg. using one's freedom to curtain freedom for others.

[Robert66]

If we let a much more intelligent lifeform to handle this, given that this sentient A.I believes that it is a good thing to help others, it will do its job much more efficiently since it is able to think and imagine and choose. Perhaps with highly intricate and complicated circuitry, it could very well be more skilled in handling irrational emotions compared to us.

A sentient AI might perform a cost/benefit calculation and its emotions might drive it to act against its core instructions and eliminate a subset of the population.

There's not much point in creating something we can't control unless we can be absolutely sure that it can be trusted, in terms of both intent and competence. How we could ever be that sure is another matter.

"We"? "Us"?

The 20th century prophet, Margaret Thatcher, said 'there is no such thing as society' (meanwhile doing all in her power to destroy society, so as to prove her point). Now her prophetic tree bears fruit. So who are the "we" referred to above?

'There's not much point in creating something we can't control ...'. Actually there is a point, and a sharp one! In fact just read Sy Borg's many posts regarding the increasing division between VIPs and proles, if you wish to understand the point.

Hoping that "we" will refrain from creating something "we" can't control may be the most irrational of all emotions.

[JackDaydream]

If we let a much more intelligent lifeform to handle this, given that this sentient A.I believes that it is a good thing to help others, it will do its job much more efficiently since it is able to think and imagine and choose. Perhaps with highly intricate and complicated circuitry, it could very well be more skilled in handling irrational emotions compared to us.

A sentient AI might perform a cost/benefit calculation and its emotions might drive it to act against its core instructions and eliminate a subset of the population.

There's not much point in creating something we can't control unless we can be absolutely sure that it can be trusted, in terms of both intent and competence. How we could ever be that sure is another matter.

"We"? "Us"?

The 20th century prophet, Margaret Thatcher, said 'there is no such thing as society' (meanwhile doing all in her power to destroy society, so as to prove her point). Now her prophetic tree bears fruit. So who are the "we" referred to above?

'There's not much point in creating something we can't control ...'. Actually there is a point, and a sharp one! In fact just read Sy Borg's many posts regarding the increasing division between VIPs and proles, if you wish to understand the point.

Hoping that "we" will refrain from creating something "we" can't control may be the most irrational of all emotions.

It does seem that 'society' has collapsed in many ways, almost like a post-apocalyptic wasteland after many semi- apocalyptic events. Apart from distinctions of the elite and those at the lower ranks there is also a sense of people becoming more like numbers, as if even individualism has begun to decay. The internet may play a part in this because a lot of people do so much online and pay less attention to other people and their value. Everything is becoming digitalised and about smart technology and human beings are becoming more isolated. The lockdowns have hastened this forward but everything seems to be changing so rapidly with human beings being expected to be more and more efficient in multitasking and performing more like machines.

[Sy Borg]

An easy way to consider the changes in what "we" means is via sport. Athletes at the elite level break records on a regular basis while the masses become fatter and physically weaker. Researchers forge onwards to ever greater intellectual feats - having now even photographed Sagittarius A* - while ever more of the public believe in obvious superstitions and easily fall for all manner of cynical lies.

If any humans are going to be sent from Earth into space, it won't be Joe and Josephine Public. If humans survive whatever apocalyptic events they have been busily facilitating, at some point there will surely be a species split, and the less advanced (and far more numerous) portion will be in a position akin to that faced by other great apes when humans took control of their habitats.

[LuckyR]

An easy way to consider the changes in what "we" means is via sport. Athletes at the elite level break records on a regular basis while the masses become fatter and physically weaker. Researchers forge onwards to ever greater intellectual feats - having now even photographed Sagittarius A* - while ever more of the public believe in obvious superstitions and easily fall for all manner of cynical lies.

If any humans are going to be sent from Earth into space, it won't be Joe and Josephine Public. If humans survive whatever apocalyptic events they have been busily facilitating, at some point there will surely be a species split, and the less advanced (and far more numerous) portion will be in a position akin to that faced by other great apes when humans took control of their habitats.

The difference is that now intelligence and education result in fewer offspring, whereas in the past, competitive advantages led to more genetic impact. In other words, stupidity and ignorance are currently evolutionally selected for.

[Sy Borg]

An easy way to consider the changes in what "we" means is via sport. Athletes at the elite level break records on a regular basis while the masses become fatter and physically weaker. Researchers forge onwards to ever greater intellectual feats - having now even photographed Sagittarius A* - while ever more of the public believe in obvious superstitions and easily fall for all manner of cynical lies.

If any humans are going to be sent from Earth into space, it won't be Joe and Josephine Public. If humans survive whatever apocalyptic events they have been busily facilitating, at some point there will surely be a species split, and the less advanced (and far more numerous) portion will be in a position akin to that faced by other great apes when humans took control of their habitats.

The difference is that now intelligence and education result in fewer offspring, whereas in the past, competitive advantages led to more genetic impact. In other words, stupidity and ignorance are currently evolutionally selected for.

If I was a drinker, that observation would drive me to drink.

Ultimately, with increasingly competent minorities at the top and increasing ignorant masses, it's no surprise that we are all seemingly heading toward autocracies.

[Astro Cat]

Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'

Science has already advanced a long way with extending the human life span through medical developments. However, the transhumanists wish to go much further, including, for example head replacements, and create ways to enable people to be happy through medications far more advanced than current pharmacology. It is hard to know how much is scientifically possible. Would a head transplant enable the same person to exist? The main emphasis is not simply about life extension but about enhancement.

Walker points out,
'Up to about the late 1990s, objections to transhumanism tended to focus almost exclusively on the unlikelihood of transhumanism rather than its desirability. The idea that technology could be used to radically enhance human beings was criticised (often simply lampooned) as being science fiction. After the birth of the first cloned animal in 1996- Dolly the sheep- the tide started to change. Critics of transhumanism began to begrudgingly concede that some of the proposals of transhumanists might be technically possible, and turned to questions of desirability or ethical rightness.'

In this thread I am raising both aspects of the debate. What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?

One of the scariest transhumanist aims I can think of is mind uploading. I don't have any particular reason to think that it's impossible to do. Perhaps it's a matter of neurological understanding, time, and engineering.

I don't believe in Hell or any other religious versions of eternal suffering. I can't fathom a finite being being made to suffer in such a way no matter what crimes they might have done.

Yet mind uploading would make Hell a very real possibility. And that terrifies me. It terrifies me that hellish tortures could be inflicted on anyone, but especially what horrific regimes would do with such technology to other minds. It terrifies me that it's probably possible to alter a simulated mind's perception of time to make it suffer effectively infinitely, forever.

I've been chilled to the bone by episodes of Black Mirror that dealt with exactly that possibility.

There are a lot of really nice and cool things that could emerge from mind uploading or mind simulation. But I am scared -- I cannot overstate how much so -- of how mind uploading or mind simulating can lead to situations that are infinitely worse than death. I don't think it's worth it. If even one person suffers near-infinite torture then no amount of good can overcome that, it's never "worth it" if it happens to even ONE person.

Yet I fear it's inevitable, if it's physically possible to do. I actually consider myself lucky I live before it's invented. 0% chance of infinite torture is infinitely better than 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance.

[JackDaydream]

Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'

Science has already advanced a long way with extending the human life span through medical developments. However, the transhumanists wish to go much further, including, for example head replacements, and create ways to enable people to be happy through medications far more advanced than current pharmacology. It is hard to know how much is scientifically possible. Would a head transplant enable the same person to exist? The main emphasis is not simply about life extension but about enhancement.

Walker points out,
'Up to about the late 1990s, objections to transhumanism tended to focus almost exclusively on the unlikelihood of transhumanism rather than its desirability. The idea that technology could be used to radically enhance human beings was criticised (often simply lampooned) as being science fiction. After the birth of the first cloned animal in 1996- Dolly the sheep- the tide started to change. Critics of transhumanism began to begrudgingly concede that some of the proposals of transhumanists might be technically possible, and turned to questions of desirability or ethical rightness.'

In this thread I am raising both aspects of the debate. What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?

One of the scariest transhumanist aims I can think of is mind uploading. I don't have any particular reason to think that it's impossible to do. Perhaps it's a matter of neurological understanding, time, and engineering.

I don't believe in Hell or any other religious versions of eternal suffering. I can't fathom a finite being being made to suffer in such a way no matter what crimes they might have done.

Yet mind uploading would make Hell a very real possibility. And that terrifies me. It terrifies me that hellish tortures could be inflicted on anyone, but especially what horrific regimes would do with such technology to other minds. It terrifies me that it's probably possible to alter a simulated mind's perception of time to make it suffer effectively infinitely, forever.

I've been chilled to the bone by episodes of Black Mirror that dealt with exactly that possibility.

There are a lot of really nice and cool things that could emerge from mind uploading or mind simulation. But I am scared -- I cannot overstate how much so -- of how mind uploading or mind simulating can lead to situations that are infinitely worse than death. I don't think it's worth it. If even one person suffers near-infinite torture then no amount of good can overcome that, it's never "worth it" if it happens to even ONE person.

Yet I fear it's inevitable, if it's physically possible to do. I actually consider myself lucky I live before it's invented. 0% chance of infinite torture is infinitely better than 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance.

I am inclined to see mind uploading as more fiction than anything else. You are correct to see the possibility like some kind of potential simulation though. The idea of mind uploading would seem to require a philosophy of mind which goes back to the concept of the ghost in the machine dualism. It would involve some kind of disembodied existence of thought, with some kind of wiring to a machine. Similarly, the idea of brain or head transplants would imply that mind can be reproduced in some ways. However, any attempt may construct something other than the person because consciousness may not simply be located in the head or brain but may be distributed in the nervous and limbic system. The question would be whether a nervous system could be transmitted onto a machine, or whether it is would it whither when disembodied. However, I would certainly not want my mind uploaded forever and would prefer mortality rather than having to live on forever as some kind of artificial spectre trapped in a machine.

[Sy Borg]

Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'

Science has already advanced a long way with extending the human life span through medical developments. However, the transhumanists wish to go much further, including, for example head replacements, and create ways to enable people to be happy through medications far more advanced than current pharmacology. It is hard to know how much is scientifically possible. Would a head transplant enable the same person to exist? The main emphasis is not simply about life extension but about enhancement.

Walker points out,
'Up to about the late 1990s, objections to transhumanism tended to focus almost exclusively on the unlikelihood of transhumanism rather than its desirability. The idea that technology could be used to radically enhance human beings was criticised (often simply lampooned) as being science fiction. After the birth of the first cloned animal in 1996- Dolly the sheep- the tide started to change. Critics of transhumanism began to begrudgingly concede that some of the proposals of transhumanists might be technically possible, and turned to questions of desirability or ethical rightness.'

In this thread I am raising both aspects of the debate. What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?

One of the scariest transhumanist aims I can think of is mind uploading. I don't have any particular reason to think that it's impossible to do. Perhaps it's a matter of neurological understanding, time, and engineering.

I don't believe in Hell or any other religious versions of eternal suffering. I can't fathom a finite being being made to suffer in such a way no matter what crimes they might have done.

Yet mind uploading would make Hell a very real possibility. And that terrifies me. It terrifies me that hellish tortures could be inflicted on anyone, but especially what horrific regimes would do with such technology to other minds. It terrifies me that it's probably possible to alter a simulated mind's perception of time to make it suffer effectively infinitely, forever.

I've been chilled to the bone by episodes of Black Mirror that dealt with exactly that possibility.

There are a lot of really nice and cool things that could emerge from mind uploading or mind simulation. But I am scared -- I cannot overstate how much so -- of how mind uploading or mind simulating can lead to situations that are infinitely worse than death. I don't think it's worth it. If even one person suffers near-infinite torture then no amount of good can overcome that, it's never "worth it" if it happens to even ONE person.

Yet I fear it's inevitable, if it's physically possible to do. I actually consider myself lucky I live before it's invented. 0% chance of infinite torture is infinitely better than 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance.

The first thing I thought of on reading "One of the scariest transhumanist aims I can think of is mind uploading" was Black Mirror, especially the episode White Christmas, where Joe's digital self is casually effectively sentenced to, subjectively, a million years of torture.

However, I don't think eternal torture would be possible. For instance, Joe's unchanging environment would, after a while, become equivalent to sensory deprivation. Without stimulus, the mind would eat itself as surely as the gut eats itself if there's no food. Memories would become memories of memories, and then memories of those memories. This would lead a shrinking spiral of consciousness that would surely ultimately stop through lack of input.

The issue with mind uploading, as illustrated in Black Mirror, is control. Those of us not brainwashed by cults or totalitarian regimes have some control over our minds, including the ultimate ability to end it. If one's mind is on a server, then the owner of the server can do whatever they like with that copy of your mind.

Still, I think digitisation is the key to an ethical existence. Digital beings theoretically do not need to kill or exploit other organisms to stay alive. Until then, we must perpetrate the brutality of nature's ouroboros.

[Astro Cat]

The first thing I thought of on reading "One of the scariest transhumanist aims I can think of is mind uploading" was Black Mirror, especially the episode White Christmas, where Joe's digital self is casually effectively sentenced to, subjectively, a million years of torture.

However, I don't think eternal torture would be possible. For instance, Joe's unchanging environment would, after a while, become equivalent to sensory deprivation. Without stimulus, the mind would eat itself as surely as the gut eats itself if there's no food. Memories would become memories of memories, and then memories of those memories. This would lead a shrinking spiral of consciousness that would surely ultimately stop through lack of input.

The issue with mind uploading, as illustrated in Black Mirror, is control. Those of us not brainwashed by cults or totalitarian regimes have some control over our minds, including the ultimate ability to end it. If one's mind is on a server, then the owner of the server can do whatever they like with that copy of your mind.

Still, I think digitisation is the key to an ethical existence. Digital beings theoretically do not need to kill or exploit other organisms to stay alive. Until then, we must perpetrate the brutality of nature's ouroboros.

Typing on a tiny screen.

While true that it might be like sensory deprivation to have a repeating loop, my concern is that Hellish, novel forms of torture would be actualizable: the limit is the torturer’s imagination. Imagine a despot being able to put a political enemy in an environment that would make Pinhead proud for as long as the regime lasts. Tortures that are unsustainable due to physical limitations or victims’ bodies dying are suddenly possible and they can past for a long time even if done in real time.

Lack of stimulus certainly doesn’t have to be a problem if a good torturer knows what they’re doing. Do you recall the episode of Black Mirror where a man gets the electric chair over and over and over? Now imagine that the torturer has the imagination of Freddy Krueger.

You seemed to be struck by the casualness in White Christmas that the guy was placed in a time loop for millions of years. Look at humans around you, do you have any doubt that humans are capable of vastly exceeding punishments appropriate for crimes on an ill-conceived whim?

The positives are great as you mentioned: rather than Hells, people could produce paradises for sustained living with very little real world costs. Would you want to live in a world where Hell is a real possibility though, however faint?

I remember watching the Nightmare on Elm Street movies and Hellraiser and things like that (huge horror person here). What always made Freddy and Pinhead scarier to me than Jason or Michael Myers is that when they “get” you, you’re not done: they have you potentially forever. If Jason or Michael Myers get you, you’re only dead. I remember proposing the solution more than once to the screen that in the face of literal eternal suffering, the character with no other choice should take their own life before Freddy or Pinhead “gets” them as it’s infinitely a better choice than infinite suffering.

Anyway, I often employ the idea of simulation when I draft the Problem of Evil for people. I point out that if something can be simulated, then God can actualize a world like it because if it can be simulated, then it’s logically possible (so omnipotence should be able to do a logically possible thing).

Then I point out that it’s possible to simulate a world that doesn’t contain physical suffering: no stubbed toes, no diseases, so on and so forth; and it’s easy to imagine to any video gamer that’s ever used a cheat code. Then I point out that since it’s possible God could have made a world without physical suffering, God is culpable for all of its existence. The free will theodicy doesn’t help at that point because the only reason people are able to harm each other is because of the world God ostensibly chose to actualize, so God still shares in the culpability for that.

[Sy Borg]

The first thing I thought of on reading "One of the scariest transhumanist aims I can think of is mind uploading" was Black Mirror, especially the episode White Christmas, where Joe's digital self is casually effectively sentenced to, subjectively, a million years of torture.

However, I don't think eternal torture would be possible. For instance, Joe's unchanging environment would, after a while, become equivalent to sensory deprivation. Without stimulus, the mind would eat itself as surely as the gut eats itself if there's no food. Memories would become memories of memories, and then memories of those memories. This would lead a shrinking spiral of consciousness that would surely ultimately stop through lack of input.

The issue with mind uploading, as illustrated in Black Mirror, is control. Those of us not brainwashed by cults or totalitarian regimes have some control over our minds, including the ultimate ability to end it. If one's mind is on a server, then the owner of the server can do whatever they like with that copy of your mind.

Still, I think digitisation is the key to an ethical existence. Digital beings theoretically do not need to kill or exploit other organisms to stay alive. Until then, we must perpetrate the brutality of nature's ouroboros.

Typing on a tiny screen.

While true that it might be like sensory deprivation to have a repeating loop, my concern is that Hellish, novel forms of torture would be actualizable: the limit is the torturer’s imagination. Imagine a despot being able to put a political enemy in an environment that would make Pinhead proud for as long as the regime lasts. Tortures that are unsustainable due to physical limitations or victims’ bodies dying are suddenly possible and they can past for a long time even if done in real time.

Lack of stimulus certainly doesn’t have to be a problem if a good torturer knows what they’re doing. Do you recall the episode of Black Mirror where a man gets the electric chair over and over and over? Now imagine that the torturer has the imagination of Freddy Krueger.

You seemed to be struck by the casualness in White Christmas that the guy was placed in a time loop for millions of years. Look at humans around you, do you have any doubt that humans are capable of vastly exceeding punishments appropriate for crimes on an ill-conceived whim?

The positives are great as you mentioned: rather than Hells, people could produce paradises for sustained living with very little real world costs. Would you want to live in a world where Hell is a real possibility though, however faint?

I remember watching the Nightmare on Elm Street movies and Hellraiser and things like that (huge horror person here). What always made Freddy and Pinhead scarier to me than Jason or Michael Myers is that when they “get” you, you’re not done: they have you potentially forever. If Jason or Michael Myers get you, you’re only dead. I remember proposing the solution more than once to the screen that in the face of literal eternal suffering, the character with no other choice should take their own life before Freddy or Pinhead “gets” them as it’s infinitely a better choice than infinite suffering.

Anyway, I often employ the idea of simulation when I draft the Problem of Evil for people. I point out that if something can be simulated, then God can actualize a world like it because if it can be simulated, then it’s logically possible (so omnipotence should be able to do a logically possible thing).

Then I point out that it’s possible to simulate a world that doesn’t contain physical suffering: no stubbed toes, no diseases, so on and so forth; and it’s easy to imagine to any video gamer that’s ever used a cheat code. Then I point out that since it’s possible God could have made a world without physical suffering, God is culpable for all of its existence. The free will theodicy doesn’t help at that point because the only reason people are able to harm each other is because of the world God ostensibly chose to actualize, so God still shares in the culpability for that.

I suppose the moral of the tale is don't volunteer to be first digitised humans. It's a bit like Windows. I like to wait until it's had the inevitable patches needed when software comes out of beta. It's possible that the first digitised minds won't be volunteers.

Eternal damnation, of course, is the worst, hence its liberal use in religions as a control mechanism (and yeah, Pinhead was pretty scary). Oblivion does not seem frightening, given that we keenly seek it every night, and in the selfless mindset of flow states.

Keeping with the popular culture theme, Star Trek's Borgs touch on the likely next step. Rather than being more free, humans will become less free, not necessarily via force but consensus. The biggest limitation in our mentality is that it is local - we are each weakly connected "nodes", each limited by being a single individual with singular sensory apparatus. What if the perceptions of many minds could be aggregated into a singular overarching AI worldview?

We animals filter out most of the sensory data gathered by some of our cellular communities aka sense organs and form a singular worldview. Perhaps this can be done with human communities? (in a more integrated than is already the case, in a sense).