Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

They do not know that they're in a simulation. But the point is moot, because they're dumb as bricks and are not sentient at all. If Toady hasn't programmed them to be sentient, they aren't. It can't be otherwise. They can't think or feel, their thoughts are only an approximation. I don't really care either way and regularly go on rampages.

They know as much about the simulation that they're in as we know about the simulation that we are in.

We do not know if we are in a simulation. It's best to assume that we aren't unless proven otherwise.

*whistles*
https://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html

Ooh, Neil degrasse Tyson.
scroll
scroll
Where's the beef
scroll

Davoudi proposed a possible way to spot one of these shortcuts: by studying cosmic rays, the most energetic particles scientists have ever observed. Cosmic rays would appear subtly different if space-time were formed of tiny, discrete chunks — like those computer pixels — as opposed to continuous, intact swaths, she said.

And so it went, along that strange assumption.

From working with virtual machines, I know it's possible to detect you're in an imperfect one (and easy to tell you're in certain known ones).

There's literally no way to write a SNES ROM which can determine that it's in an emulator.

[Spehss _]

Anything I do to the dwarves is justified, as they are less powerful and cannot stop me.

RULES OF NATURE

-universe simulation snip-

The whole "universe is a simulation" theory was also debunked based on trying to make computer models of quantum physical interactions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

[Draignean]

-universe simulation snip-

The whole "universe is a simulation" theory was also debunked based on trying to make computer models of quantum physical interactions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

In all honesty, that's like cavemen saying that lightning must be an act of God because it's able to be conclusively proven that technology of the modern cavemen can't make lightning.

At present, we can't do this =/= This can't ever be done.

[GoblinCookie]

I wasn't talking about the players. I was talking about the characters. DF is a single-player game, and the characters can't stop you, so everything you do to them is fine.

The victims here would not be the characters but the players themselves.  That is because there is no difference between killing the exact appearance of 100 people and actually killing 100 people from the POV of the one doing the killing (not in objective reality).  So regardless of whether the people being killed actually exist all, the person is now themselves psychologically affected by the act of having killed the appearance of 100 people exactly as they would as if they had really killed 100 people.

To clarify things, I am of course not arguing that playing DF is actually unethical, only that it is possible to play the game such that it is actually unethical.  Even in the case that you did play the game unethically, the effect would be minor because the game lacks immersion owing to it's poor graphics, meaning that there is a long way to go between killing folks in DF to killing folks in real-life.  This however is just a technological limitation really, some types of games have more unethical potential than others, the worse games are those that fit closest to reality as depicted in either the abstract or the mundane, that is they mirror the real-world either as we abstractly imagine it to be (think strategy games with maps) or as we actually see it (think Elder Scrolls type games like Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim).

For a thought experiment lets imagine something called the PIG, (stands for perfectly immersive game); it's rather like the Matrix really.  If we do something in the PIG then it is essentially identical to actually doing it in real-life.  In PIG I murder 100 small children, these beings do not of course actually exist in PIG but because PIG is so immersive the experience of killing them mirrors near-perfectly the experience of doing so in real-life.  Even though you did not actually kill anybody who exactly existed, your experience of the world is now that of a person who murders small children; you are a murderer in effect even though you never actually killed anyone. 

[Greiger]

I've always felt questions like this could be solved by analysis of the purpose they were created for.  Is it ethical to murder creatures in all kinds of horrible ways in the game even if they somehow became aware?  Yes, their existence is for the purpose of entertainment in all manner of ways, including torturous ones. if that purpose did not exist then THEY would not exist.  At that point I feel the ethical questions would have to be directed towards the creator, not the player.  Though I would still personally fall on the side of creation, as I feel life of almost any kind is preferable to oblivion.

It's the same way I can still feel moral eating meat from livestock animals, while still being against the unnecessary mistreatment of those animals.  In their case their purpose is to provide meat, not to be tortured for entertainment or suffer needlessly.  The opposite of the worlds in dwarf fortress.

[vvAve]

Who cares. You all people are being offloaded when I don't look to save processing power and I am a center of all existence. Prove me wrong - you can't 

[bloop_bleep]

Who cares. You all people are being offloaded when I don't look to save processing power and I am a center of all existence. Prove me wrong - you can't 

We can, actually -- if only those in your general vicinity are active at any given time, that means the people which you spend most of your time with would go through life much more quickly than those you see very rarely. We would notice that a certain area of the world would age much faster than the rest.

[vvAve]

That doesn't mean they aren't tracked while offloaded though. Just generalized.

[Draignean]

Who cares. You all people are being offloaded when I don't look to save processing power and I am a center of all existence. Prove me wrong - you can't 

We can, actually -- if only those in your general vicinity are active at any given time, that means the people which you spend most of your time with would go through life much more quickly than those you see very rarely. We would notice that a certain area of the world would age much faster than the rest.

That's not really true. Any decent sim would be able to reconcile the lost time relatively easily, just because everything wasn't rendered graphically doesn't mean the simulation can't reconstruct the events that happened in the intervening time. We're offloaded and our states are checked on reload. If we're not synced to the proper time, the off screen events are rapidly simulated offscreen- none of the actual physics needs to be run, just a calculation of probabilities and outcomes.

That'd be like if, in dwarf fortress, no one who wasn't on your adventurer's screen aged.

[KittyTac]

I wasn't talking about the players. I was talking about the characters. DF is a single-player game, and the characters can't stop you, so everything you do to them is fine.

The victims here would not be the characters but the players themselves.  That is because there is no difference between killing the exact appearance of 100 people and actually killing 100 people from the POV of the one doing the killing (not in objective reality).  So regardless of whether the people being killed actually exist all, the person is now themselves psychologically affected by the act of having killed the appearance of 100 people exactly as they would as if they had really killed 100 people.

To clarify things, I am of course not arguing that playing DF is actually unethical, only that it is possible to play the game such that it is actually unethical.  Even in the case that you did play the game unethically, the effect would be minor because the game lacks immersion owing to it's poor graphics, meaning that there is a long way to go between killing folks in DF to killing folks in real-life.  This however is just a technological limitation really, some types of games have more unethical potential than others, the worse games are those that fit closest to reality as depicted in either the abstract or the mundane, that is they mirror the real-world either as we abstractly imagine it to be (think strategy games with maps) or as we actually see it (think Elder Scrolls type games like Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim).

For a thought experiment lets imagine something called the PIG, (stands for perfectly immersive game); it's rather like the Matrix really.  If we do something in the PIG then it is essentially identical to actually doing it in real-life.  In PIG I murder 100 small children, these beings do not of course actually exist in PIG but because PIG is so immersive the experience of killing them mirrors near-perfectly the experience of doing so in real-life.  Even though you did not actually kill anybody who exactly existed, your experience of the world is now that of a person who murders small children; you are a murderer in effect even though you never actually killed anyone.

They still aren't real people. I wouldn't feel a thing in PIG.

[GoblinCookie]

They still aren't real people. I wouldn't feel a thing in PIG.

That is exactly one the problems.  Not feeling anything about the appearance of the killing defenseless people is not something we want to encourage.  Because in Real-Life the appearance of a defenceless person *is* still an actual defenceless person.  We want people to care when they see it.   

That's not really true. Any decent sim would be able to reconcile the lost time relatively easily, just because everything wasn't rendered graphically doesn't mean the simulation can't reconstruct the events that happened in the intervening time. We're offloaded and our states are checked on reload. If we're not synced to the proper time, the off screen events are rapidly simulated offscreen- none of the actual physics needs to be run, just a calculation of probabilities and outcomes.

That'd be like if, in dwarf fortress, no one who wasn't on your adventurer's screen aged.

The funny thing about the game is that nobody is actually there where you left them once you leave/offload the site and lots of things cannot actually happen when the game in onloaded.  In lots of ways the onloaded world is actually frozen in space, this rather facilitates the committing of great atrocities, since the population can only spawn soldiers to fight us when the site is offloaded.  If lots of folks die during onloaded play, when we offload the site tends to be full of soldiers but this cannot happen on an onloaded site however many folks die and however long the site is onloaded for.

[KittyTac]

They still aren't real people. I wouldn't feel a thing in PIG.

That is exactly one the problems.  Not feeling anything about the appearance of the killing defenseless people is not something we want to encourage.  Because in Real-Life the appearance of a defenceless person *is* still an actual defenceless person.  We want people to care when they see it.   

I would feel something if I wasn't told it was a game. If I WAS informed that it was a game, apathy, as always.

[GoblinCookie]

I would feel something if I wasn't told it was a game. If I WAS informed that it was a game, apathy, as always.

You are now choosing whether to care rather than actually caring.  Your ability to choose whether or not to care in a particular context based solely on what you know in the abstract can equally be employed in real-life.

When you look at all genocidal mass-murderers, they do something similar to what you are doing.  Despite the appearance being identical they are able to choose not to care based upon what they *know* in the abstract, in your case that PIG's people don't really exist.  Genocidal murderers make similar abstract distinctions and are able to use it to category bracket particular appearances of murder from others despite their identicality.

[KittyTac]

I would feel something if I wasn't told it was a game. If I WAS informed that it was a game, apathy, as always.

You are now choosing whether to care rather than actually caring.  Your ability to choose whether or not to care in a particular context based solely on what you know in the abstract can equally be employed in real-life.

When you look at all genocidal mass-murderers, they do something similar to what you are doing.  Despite the appearance being identical they are able to choose not to care based upon what they *know* in the abstract, in your case that PIG's people don't really exist.  Genocidal murderers make similar abstract distinctions and are able to use it to category bracket particular appearances of murder from others despite their identicality.

What's preventing me from killing simulated people but being nice to real, living people? Yes, that's kinda racist, but still. Also, your arguments are irrelevant no matter your answer because DF doesn't have a perfect appearance of a human.

[Flying Dice]

I would feel something if I wasn't told it was a game. If I WAS informed that it was a game, apathy, as always.

You are now choosing whether to care rather than actually caring.  Your ability to choose whether or not to care in a particular context based solely on what you know in the abstract can equally be employed in real-life.

When you look at all genocidal mass-murderers, they do something similar to what you are doing.  Despite the appearance being identical they are able to choose not to care based upon what they *know* in the abstract, in your case that PIG's people don't really exist.  Genocidal murderers make similar abstract distinctions and are able to use it to category bracket particular appearances of murder from others despite their identicality.

If they don't actually exist there's no ethical dilemma-they're not sophonts, and no moral actor aware of that fact is obliged to pretend that they are. You're equating the ability to discern the difference between fiction and reality to justifying mass-murder.

Are you partially culpable for murder if you watch a slasher film?