There's a speaker monster coming out that can convince you to let him eat

One day, a philosopher was walking along the way when he was jumped by a monster.

Despite the terrible teeth, the monster was more polite and artistic than you could expect.

I want you to eat, please,” The monster told him.

I'm sorry, but I don't prefer to be your lunch,” went into philosophy, and kept going.

The monster told him. “What if I can convince you with my argument?

The philosopher suspected that a monster could be so convincing that he would leave it with his own will to eat it, yet he was intrigued.

“Continue,” he told him.

A few minutes later, the monster left with a professor of dead philosophy in its stomach.

The theoretical beast, called “the Utilitar monster”, is a philosophical think experiment, originally proposed in the 1970s. To deny her argument and stop her from eating, you are asked to reject a very popular and intuitive principle about what is right and what is wrong.

Long considered lifeless, if not impossible, the Utilitar monster is usually regarded as something of fantasy. However, according to some researchers, we may already have entered the construction trajector of one but that may be silicon-made, not meat claws.

If these researchers are right, we may soon have some hard choices to make if we want to avoid ending up in his stomach.

To understand the deadly argument of the monster, you first need to understand the ethical theory proposed as a challenge - the well - known school of thinking about moral philosophy called Utilarianism.

Utilitarism is quite dry, some have stressed that it sounds like washing clothes is really a deep way of thinking about happiness and human efforts to prioritize good life for most people. Inexplicably designed, a Utilitar is guided by the principle that well-being can be calculated and that we should aim at maximized it in the world. For many of its voters, Utilitarism offers a simple rule to decide how to live life, to be charitable, and to choose our careers.

But while the principle of maximized well-being and happiness may seem intuitively correct, there are some extreme cases when it doesn't seem that way.

A rejection of the most basic form of Utilitarism is that it seems to allow for acts that everyone agrees to be wrong about, like killing or supporting people's deliberate suffering. For example, in the short story of the fantasy writer Ursula Leain, the Ones Who Walway from Omelas”, the reader is reported to be a thriving and joyous city whose existence is entirely based on the extreme misery of a single child living in a dungeon. If someone were to increase the happiness of the city, then they had to massively increase the child's pain. But, as Le Gwin writes, some residents cannot stand the idea of a child used as a sacrifice, no matter how happy it creates, and thus “leaves the city.

There are other and more different challenges to Utilitarism, but what matters to us belongs to the hungry monster.

On the path in which the Utilitar philosopher demands that the evidence be presented for eating, the monster explains that there is a special way of experiencing prosperity.

Your experience of happiness is just a small fraction of what I'm capable of feeling,” she says. I'm as different to him as you are with an ant. If I eat you, it will offer me more well-being and satisfaction than all people have ever experienced. ”

The philosopher hesitates to try to think of a counterargument. Well, God, this is a valid argument...” But time ends, and the professor becomes the monster's lunch.

Of course, there are certain answers to the monster. The philosopher who believed that there are certain moral codes that cannot be violated would have less trouble responding. Killing people for food is wrong, one could say, so I don't eat dicks about how happy you would be if you ate me.

The real answer to the monster's scenario is that they've never met such a creature in the first place that it's as unrealistic as it should be when they make moral decisions in the real world. True, it is hard to imagine a single being that can experience more well - being than all dead and living humans is far from thinking and imagining in our mammals ' brains.

But there is a turning point now in this thought experiment. Nick Bostrom and Carl Schulman of Oxford University have proposed a way for the Utilitar monster to come back into existence. It may be far in the future, but in labs and companies worldwide for now, they believe we're taking steps in that direction.

Bostrom is one of the academics who supports the idea that we must prepare for the sudden achievement of super-intelligent, far smarter than the best human minds and capable of freezing new ethical dilemmas for mankind. In a recent article published on his website, he and Schulman proposes the scenario where one of these digital minds becomes a “up-user of prosperity (a term they prefer before “permutator” because they believe that such minds should not be described in non-comparative languages).

To this point, it should be estimated that a digital intelligent mind may seem somewhat unrealistic. If you don't have a gene for science fiction, all of this might seem serious. But many serious scientists believe that an artificial intelligence that exceeds our intelligence is by no means impossible. And when it happens, and soon to happen, the creation of ethical and existential dilemmas will become inevitable.

The “the thoughts of the cars we're building are becoming increasingly complex,” says Bolstrom. And we can clearly see a trajectory from now. ”

So if we accept that it's possible that highly sophisticated digital minds will come out in the future, that makes us think with qualities, needs and mental experiences quite different from ours.

There is reason to think that the engineering mind can experience longer satisfaction and more intensity,” writes Bolstrom and Schulman. In contrast, culinary pleasures are regulated by hunger, and sexual appetites from libido, and our satisfaction can be diminished by frustration and normality. Digital minds wouldn't have these barriers.

Full Article