Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]

Author Topic: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?  (Read 2902 times)

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #105 on: January 14, 2018, 02:47:33 pm »

We do agree then, I was merely stating that if you say you say you can't conclude conscience in animals, there is nothing allowing you to draw those conclusions in other humans either.

I agree in essence, the problem is the basis upon which we conclude that other beings are conscious is self-referential, so the probability goes down the more differences there are between me and them.  The means that the more similar the other beings are to *me* the more reason I have to assume that they are also conscious beings, this however is still only a % probability.  It is quite possible, though improbable that I am living in a single-player game in which all other beings are just NPCs, they are programmed to respond *as though* they were conscious which includes in conversations like this.  The problem with animal consciousness however is largely of a different nature altogether. 

The problem is that you are unaware of most of the things your body does.  That might not be a problem when we are talking about the boring, repetitive stuff like breathing or digestion but we also have the ability to carry out certain actions which are normally done consciously in the same fashion.  We can simply conclude that all apparently deliberately conscious animal activity is simply automatically carried out in an unthinking way.  Other humans have the advantage that we can talk to them and they appear to be able to understand the 'problem of consciousness', which means that unless for some reason they are programmed to deceive us (the above mentioned single-player universe) their ability to comprehend the problem implies they are truly conscious. 

Other humans have a definite edge over animals on account of them being 'very like us' and because of their ability to comprehend the problem.  If the requirements for consciousness are 'picky', that is to say very specific conditions potentially only found in humans are required to become consciousness then it is likely that humans are the only conscious beings.  If the requirements are 'unpicky', which is to say only some part of our general neurological structure is needed for consciousness; then it basically follows that other animals are probably conscious.  The tricky thing is that is the more picky the requirements *are*, the harder it becomes to figure out what exactly it is in particular about the human body that allows consciousness to come about. 

If we decide to treat cute fluffy chimps as though they conscious beings, is implies a rejection of the 'picky' consciousness model, because we have no reason to think that chimps would be conscious if the requirements are very precise.  On the 'unpicky' consciousness model however the only real grounds for distinction are between phylum's, a fish is organized basically similarly to a chimp, just as a human is organized basically similarly to it.  The probability only goes down when we start making cross-phylum comparisons like arthopodsVSvertebrates, it is more probable that a fish is conscious than an insect is.  The issue there is now whether it has to be organized in a particular basic fashion in general, or whether the specific architecture is irrelevant as long as the function is the same. 

Meh, video game characters are inferior to humans or even bacteria, so there are no ethical repercussions for killing them. Well, according to my ethics. I don't know about yours.

Your ethics do not work for many reasons already discussed.  Another reason they do not work is the possibility of a single-player universe in which *I* (naturally) am the only player and everybody else is just an NPC.  If that is the case all ethics is now how we treat simulated consciousnesses, remember that the world-of-things-in-themselves is unknowable and only appearances can be known.  You cannot get behind the world-of-appearances to check if the people you are dealing with actually exist as conscious beings prior to your experiencing the appearance of their being there.
Logged
Forgotten Realms Direforged 2.5Y
*Released 14th January 2018
(Version 0.44.04)
My book

dragdeler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Disdains the law
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #106 on: January 14, 2018, 03:05:51 pm »

But that's the kind of arrogance that annoys me, just take a look at Koko the gorilla, Kanzi the bonobo, Pebbles the cockatoo or Wojtek the bear... The evidence is overwhelming for animals.

Now as to radical constructivism: it's a perspective, a frame of mind and something to never forget. But the scientific method rejects every aspect that isn't necessary to a model (->"electron fly around protons, because god said so"). So from our 21st century point of vue there is next to no interest to color our explanations of the world with that additional layer. It might change tough, who knows.
Logged

KittyTac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Impending Catsplosion. [PREFSTRING:aloofness]
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #107 on: January 14, 2018, 09:05:11 pm »

I just do not care. I can torture VG characters all I want and you can't stop me.
Logged
My mods! http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=165028.0
Dungeon Crawl Let's Play!
GENERATION 30:
The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
SpaceStory
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the logs falling on you at the end.

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #108 on: January 15, 2018, 03:15:29 pm »

But that's the kind of arrogance that annoys me, just take a look at Koko the gorilla, Kanzi the bonobo, Pebbles the cockatoo or Wojtek the bear... The evidence is overwhelming for animals.

Now as to radical constructivism: it's a perspective, a frame of mind and something to never forget. But the scientific method rejects every aspect that isn't necessary to a model (->"electron fly around protons, because god said so"). So from our 21st century point of vue there is next to no interest to color our explanations of the world with that additional layer. It might change tough, who knows.

Then science rejects consciousness, *especially* animal consciousness.  If you can come up with a model that explains something with the fewest entities (Occam's razor), then it follows that if I can ever come up with a complete scientific model to explain the whole behavior of something conscious then consciousness is hence eliminated.  For many centuries we have of course been developing a more or less complete model to explain away all animal behavior, so animal consciousness is hence eliminated; which of course was the whole point of the exercise :).  Science has a rather large vested interest in eliminating as much consciousness as possible because the less consciousness, the more lab rats to freely experiment on.  It does not matter how many gorillas you can train to talk, that we can explain how you trained them means we have no need to regard their speech as proof of anything. 

The ultimate irony comes in the end when the last scientist manages to explain away his own existence and so is forced to conclude that he does not exist using Occam's razor.  Of course this all based upon how the scientific mystique is built on a lie, as the actual material world beyond appearances is *unknowable*.  That means there is absolutely no means at all whatsoever by which anyone can ever produce anything except a catalogue of the various appearances that they perceive and there is no way to get a complete picture of anything at all, since there may always be more than is unseen.  That of course matters not, for the real purpose of the scientific exercise to the assert your own power over others, to assert the 'one true science' in the place of the 'one true god'.  The greatest power is to get people to deny their own appearances in favour of yours by convincing them that they see only appearances but you perceive *something more*. 

As St. Ignatius said once, "must be prepared to hold that white I see with my eyes is black if that were the decision of the magisterium of the catholic church".  Then came the Reformation and the whole situation fell apart, the Church lost it's authority to properly dominate the human mind.  The problem with religion is that while the clergy may claim to speak for god, the ability to speak for god is claimable by anyone, which allows for reformations to happen.  Science is far better in this role because it is utterly immune to such disruptions since it is really just the best truth that money can buy, while the lowly minions in the olden days could feasibly claim to speak for god, the lowly minions of the modern world can in no way challenge the scientific elite on the old basis since it is now money and power itself that produces scientific evidence. 

While priests and theocratic rulers of old may have had money and power on account of their divine authority, their divine authority did not simply sprout from their wealth/power; so a ragged prophet could rise to overthrow them.  Not so with scientists, they cannot but be the wealthy or powerful since it is only those things that allow them to produce evidence to begin with. 
Logged
Forgotten Realms Direforged 2.5Y
*Released 14th January 2018
(Version 0.44.04)
My book

dragdeler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Disdains the law
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #109 on: January 15, 2018, 03:52:57 pm »

In my point of vue consciousness (look I really don't care for that weak distinction, it's like I speak 3 languages and none of them well, so for many things I favor the words of one particular language, in this case I mean "Bewusstsein", but anyway you got me to look it up and well that... that helped duh)

let me start over

In my point of vue consciousness is a prerequesite for many things, such as intent, memory, planning and well even fucking conscience, since you couldn't have morality without emphaty, which you would not have either, because it's way higher in the evolution tree than consciousness. So I don't see how Occam's razor takes anything off that (thanks for teaching me the short way to reference this). As to insisting that only the awareness of consciousness defines  true consciousness (or the ability to define said awareness). I find that very silly, and by the way it brings me back to my original point which is that by that measure most humans don't pass, and every mimickry argument can be applied to them.

I wonder tough, did I miss your point? Because I still feel like I kind of have to explain myself.

edit: it's point of VIEW right?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 04:34:35 pm by dragdeler »
Logged

Kat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #110 on: January 15, 2018, 05:02:26 pm »

[ETHIC:PLAY_DWARF_FORTRESS:PERSONAL_MATTER]
Logged

KittyTac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Impending Catsplosion. [PREFSTRING:aloofness]
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #111 on: January 15, 2018, 09:37:26 pm »

Oh, and: [KILL_VIRTUAL_ELF:REQUIRED_IF_NOT_QUEST], [TORTURE_VIRTUAL_ELF:REQUIRED_IF_NOT_QUEST].
Logged
My mods! http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=165028.0
Dungeon Crawl Let's Play!
GENERATION 30:
The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
SpaceStory
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the logs falling on you at the end.

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #112 on: January 16, 2018, 07:59:00 am »

In my point of vue consciousness (look I really don't care for that weak distinction, it's like I speak 3 languages and none of them well, so for many things I favor the words of one particular language, in this case I mean "Bewusstsein", but anyway you got me to look it up and well that... that helped duh)

let me start over

In my point of vue consciousness is a prerequesite for many things, such as intent, memory, planning and well even fucking conscience, since you couldn't have morality without emphaty, which you would not have either, because it's way higher in the evolution tree than consciousness. So I don't see how Occam's razor takes anything off that (thanks for teaching me the short way to reference this). As to insisting that only the awareness of consciousness defines  true consciousness (or the ability to define said awareness). I find that very silly, and by the way it brings me back to my original point which is that by that measure most humans don't pass, and every mimickry argument can be applied to them.

I wonder tough, did I miss your point? Because I still feel like I kind of have to explain myself.

edit: it's point of VIEW right?

My first point is that the world we see *is* not the real/material world, yet about the real/material world the only things that can known are it's existence, that it produces appearances and the fact that nothing further can be known.  This means the only facts are appearances, so all facts are unreal, since any claim about the world as it really is beyond our appearances must always be uncertain.

The reason we know that there is a real world is that we lack power over our own appearances, if the appearances we see are entirely the work of our mind then this would not be the case.  This entails that reality exists as a factor of our lack of power, if we had godlike powers to shape out whole world of appearances in accord to our will this would lead us to conclude that there *is* no external reality that is beyond our mind; but since we lack that ability we know there is something beyond our consciousness. 

My second point is that we understand scientifically the apparent behaviour of ordinary particles according to physical laws without reference to consciousness, or as you put it earlier we don't claim that (->"electrons fly around protons, because god said so"). Supposedly conscious beings are themselves made of particles that operate according to the ordinary material principles.  Unless those beings exhibit some behaviour that cannot be explained as the result of the combined functioning of all the particles then consciousness is in trouble.

An actual conscious being on top of all the particles, whether arising from their union or existing in parallel violated Occam's Razor at the point I have a scientific model that adequately explains the entire observable behaviour without reference to such a thing.  This is why I said that consciousness and science are opposed, it is only the failure of present science to 'explain away' the behaviours attributed to consciousness that allows the concept to survive.   

By third point is that science, or rather the scientific ideology is built on a lie.  The lie is because of point one nobody can claim to have factual knowledge of the world beyond subjective experiences, yet scientific ideologues claim that science can actually allow them to understand the material world through the application of the 'scientific method'.  I am not claiming that actual science is worthless, only that what scientists are actually doing is not revealing the objective material world but instead simply making an extensive catalogue of their own appearances.

This solves the problem with consciousness caused by the second point because if all our scientists are doing is cataloguing appearances, then the appearance of a world of mindless particles no longer inherently competes with consciousness since the same thing (in the unknowable material world) can appear as two separate appearances.  You can perceive the world as a conscious being and the scientists can perceive a world of mindless particles and both can be right; since neither are the real world

My fourth point is that scientific ideology serves the purpose of elevating certain appearances (those of the powerful) over those of others, allowing the powerless to be trained into obedient minions incapable of questioning their masters since they do not regard their own appearances of anything but regard only the appearances they are told are so.  In the olden days organised religion (Catholic Church in western Europe) carried out this function but the flaw in using religion for this end was revealed in the Reformation, the moment folks start to believe that they can have a personal connection to divinity the powerful (official clergy) lose much of their grip. 

For this end religion's earlier function was replaced with scientific ideology.  This happened because religion was no longer 'working', but science has an inherent advantage over religion in this function.  Science itself is inherently dependant upon power because the power of science depends upon the means at the scientists disposal.  There is no way a reformation can happen to science, because scientists have only the resources the powerful give them and the more resources a scientist has, the more scientific evidence he can produce.  Scientific ideology regards scientific evidence above everything else, so we have the perfect system of control in that unlike with religion no rogue scientist can ever function since you only have to 'turn off the tap'.
Logged
Forgotten Realms Direforged 2.5Y
*Released 14th January 2018
(Version 0.44.04)
My book

Funk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #113 on: January 16, 2018, 08:52:34 pm »

Yes and ou need to get out more(or play more DF)
Logged
Agree, plus that's about the LAST thing *I* want to see from this kind of game - author spending valuable development time on useless graphics.

Unofficial slogan of Bay 12 Games.  

Death to the false emperor a warhammer40k SG

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #114 on: January 16, 2018, 09:05:29 pm »

play more DF
Eventually DF shall become such an intricate simulation of reality, that by understanding DF, one can understand the world

KittyTac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Impending Catsplosion. [PREFSTRING:aloofness]
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #115 on: January 16, 2018, 09:07:18 pm »

I'll revise my ethics a bit. [KILL_VIRTUAL:ETHICS_NOT_APPLICABLE] and [TORTURE_VIRTUAL:ETHICS_NOT_APPLICABLE].
Logged
My mods! http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=165028.0
Dungeon Crawl Let's Play!
GENERATION 30:
The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
SpaceStory
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the logs falling on you at the end.

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
  • Maybe when I delete you [redacted]
    • View Profile
Re: Is playing dwarf fortress ethical?
« Reply #116 on: January 16, 2018, 09:45:01 pm »

Reading violent books is unethical. You're creating thinking beings that run on the hardware of your brain just so they can suffer and die.
Logged
"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to." - Randall Munroe
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]