the lives of octopuses mean much less to me than human lives, but more than tiny molecular paperclips
to:
it seems like worlds shaped by the goal systems of other evolved biological creatures probably don’t “contain almost nothing of worth”
…?
Because it sure seems to me that a future shaped by the goal systems of octopuses will, indeed, contain almost nothing of worth. (And I do not see what the heck “feel[ing] pleasure and pain” has to do with anything…)
(And, yeah, other animals are close to being as valueless as paperclips. [EDIT: In the sense of “value as a moral subject”, of course; in terms of instrumental value, well, paperclips aren’t valueless either—not regular ones, anyhow.] I like octopuses, but tiling the universe with them doesn’t constitute the creation of a huge amount of value, that’s for sure.)
If you construct a scenario where an “octopus” is actually just a “human in a funny suit”, then sure, you can draw all sorts of unintuitive conclusions. I don’t consider this to be informative.
Suppose that (evolved/uplifted/otherwise-advanced-enough-for-sapience) octopuses share some of our values. Now suppose that humans go extinct, and these Octopus sapiens create an advanced civilization, whose products instantiate some values we would recognize, like art, music, science, etc.
How do you get from:
to:
…?
Because it sure seems to me that a future shaped by the goal systems of octopuses will, indeed, contain almost nothing of worth. (And I do not see what the heck “feel[ing] pleasure and pain” has to do with anything…)
(And, yeah, other animals are close to being as valueless as paperclips. [EDIT: In the sense of “value as a moral subject”, of course; in terms of instrumental value, well, paperclips aren’t valueless either—not regular ones, anyhow.] I like octopuses, but tiling the universe with them doesn’t constitute the creation of a huge amount of value, that’s for sure.)
Consider a human being—specifically not yourself. Why are they relevant to your values but an octopus isn’t?
After answering that:
In a hypothetical where an octopus is an artist, a scientist, an author and a reader, why does the difference remain?
If you construct a scenario where an “octopus” is actually just a “human in a funny suit”, then sure, you can draw all sorts of unintuitive conclusions. I don’t consider this to be informative.
Fair. I was drawing on your comment: