electricfistula

Most poeple disagree with the premise "Being in a simulation is/can be made to be indistinguishable from reality from the point of view of the simulee."

I am surprised to hear this. What is your basis for claiming that this is the premise most people object to?

Also, if you are aware of or familiar with this objection - would you mind explaining the following questions I have regarding it?

1. What reason is there to suspect that a simulated me would have a different/distinguishable experience from real me?

2. What reason is there to suspect that if there were differences between simulated and real life, that a simulated life would be aware of those differences?

I think speculation as to the actual author of the above is entirely vacuous. There is a person out there named Glenn Beck who has a job in radio. There is also a personality out there named Glenn Beck who says extreme things and writes lots of books and cries on TV a lot. The Glenn Beck person and the Glenn Beck personality might be the same, or they might not be. I've seen no evidence toward either conclusion, more importantly there doesn't seem to be any functional difference.

So, when someone says that the above is attributed to Glenn Beck they mean the Glenn Beck persona. Whether or not the human... (read more)

My entire point was that it might be possible to recognize these situations and then act in an appropriate manner.

I think this is called "behaving rationally". I understand "rationality" as using reason to my benefit. If there comes a time when it would be beneficial for me to do something, and I arrive at that conclusion through reason, then I'd consider that a triumph of rationality. I think if you are able to anticipate an advantage that could be gained by a behavior then refusing to perform that behavior would be irrational.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't be a cause to say something is horrible.

You misunderstand me. It isn't my anecdotal... (read 772 more words →)

That said, does it really matter why I do nice things for people, as long as I do them ?

From an economics standpoint it doesn't matter. From a morality standpoint I would say it is all that does matter.

Consider, your friend asks you to get a cup of coffee - with sugar please! You go make the coffee and put in a healthy amount of the white powder. Unknown to you, this isn't sugar, it is cyanide. Your friend drinks the coffee and falls down dead. What is your moral culpability here?

In a second instance, someone who thinks of you as a friend asks you for a... (read 568 more words →)

I pose the question of what does being a superior rationalist do for you

In the aggregate of all possible worlds, I expect it will let me lead a happier and more fulfilling life. This isn't to say that there aren't situations where it will disadvantage me to be a rationalist (a killer locks me and one other person in a room with a logic puzzle. He will kill the one who completes the puzzle first...) but in general, I think it will be an advantage. Its like in the game of poker, sometimes, the correct play will result in losing. That is okay though, if players play enough... (read more)

then belief in this kind of afterlife basically acts as a powerful anti-akrasia aid, motivating me to achieve this goal

This depends very much on what you mean by "better person". Returning a lost wallet because you know the pain of losing things and because you understand the wallet's owner is a sapient being who will experience similar pain is the kind of thing a good person would do. Returning a lost wallet because you expect a reward is more of a morally neutral thing to do. So, if you are doing good deeds because you expect a heavenly reward then you aren't really being a good person (according to... (read 541 more words →)

someone has to experience a loss (I pay extra for your power in addition to mine). Is there a loss in my scenario, and if so, to whom

The cost is to you. You are the one doing good deeds. I consider the time and effort (and money) you expend doing good deeds for other people to be the cost here.

Why do you think this would be immoral ?

My feeling is that this is an implicit corruption of your free will. You aren't actually intending to pay my power, you are just doing it because you don't realize you are. Similarly, in the religion example, what you actually... (read more)

Suppose we are neighbors. By some mixup, the power company is combining my electric bill to your own. You notice that your bill is unusually high, but you pay it anyway because you want electricity. In fact, you like electricity so much that you are happy to pay even the high bill to get continued power. Now, suppose that I knew all the details of the situation. Should I tell you about the error?

I think this case is pretty similar to the one you've described about the religion that makes you do good things. You pay my bill because you want a good for yourself.... (read more)