Thread:Mr.Robbo/@comment-4844180-20140222165501/@comment-5135903-20140223182514


 * You claim that virtual beings are conscious, which is impossible, as they necessarily do not exist. There are an infinite number of possible non existent beings, independant of whether they were 'created' by physical beings or not.


 * You arbitrarily apply rules to the scenario, such as that a virtual being goes into a coma if they go undeveloped, and that, for some reason, virtual beings existing in alternate perceptions of reality (Hans Moravec) 'don't count'. If we are applying such rules so arbitrarily, then there is no logic or reason to the argument.


 * By definition, a virtual being is not real, and therefore cannot be treated as such.

I suggest that we present future debates as syllogisms, so that we are less likely to misunderstand each other. For example...

Proposition 1: Virtual beings and physical beings are equal.

Proposition 2: Murder of physical beings is wrong.

Conclusion: Murder of virtual beings is wrong.

Syllogisms are irrefutable, and can only be countered by attacking the propositions. In this example, I would choose to attack Proposition 1, which would require me to create a syllogism in which the conclusion disproves the above Proposition 1.