Content area

Abstract

Issue Title: Special issue: Social impact of AI: killer robots or friendly fridges

Nicholas Agar has recently argued that it would be irrational for future human beings to choose to radically enhance themselves by uploading their minds onto computers. Utilizing Searle's argument that machines cannot think, he claims that uploading might entail death. He grants that Searle's argument is controversial, but he claims, so long as there is a non-zero probability that uploading entails death, uploading is irrational. I argue that Agar's argument, like Pascal's wager on which it is modelled, fails, because the principle that we (or future agents) ought to avoid actions that might entail death is not action guiding. Too many actions fall under its scope for the principle to be plausible. I also argue that the probability that uploading entails death is likely to be lower than Agar recognizes.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Details

Title
Searle's wager
Author
Levy, Neil
Pages
363-369
Publication year
2011
Publication date
Nov 2011
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
ISSN
09515666
e-ISSN
14355655
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
900769847
Copyright
Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011