Searle's wager

Neil Levy*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)363-369
Number of pages7
JournalAI and Society
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2011
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2011. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Searle's wager'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this