site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   2000 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 19, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

Reread Campbell's Dauntless. The writing could use a lot of work, but the basic idea works: the legendary Black Jack Geary wakes up to a universe where military discipline has been forgotten, and he has to work to restore it while saving the fleet. Despite the many problems with the writing, it has a quality that makes one want to read it again. Perhaps it is the authenticity of the military aspects combined with Geary's leadership style.

Not much progress on Taylor's A Secular Age.

Caugh up to Reverend Insanity. @self_made_human might be interested in this.

Biggest hangup (aside from things like bad prose, which I've reached the stage of acceptance with):

I think Fang Yuan's clones' alignment ought to have been addressed more. Do they not want eternal life, and if they do, are they not afraid that the original will not share? If they don't want it, why? Did Fang Yuan prune their will on creation so that they were effectively enslaved to the goals of the original? Is he simply substrate-agnostic enough to not care which one of him reaches eternal life? Are split souls magically loyal to each other and the original? There is no way he had not considered that he might betray himself, but there's nothing in the text regarding it.

Split souls are generally well aligned to their original. It's practically unheard of for them to act knowingly against the interests of the person who made them. It's a generic property of the process, though Fang Yuan, is, IIRC, willing to use them as backups if his main soul is KIA. They instinctively trust and coordinate with each other according to their shared understanding of their best interests.

But, there are exceptions. I'm not sure where this becomes relevant, and I suspect you've already reached this section if you're in the last third of the book:

Bo Qing was the most successful of Spectral Soul's split souls. He was entirely above board with the project to rescue the original from death, until he was love bombed by Love Hu, as used by Mo Yao. Then he lost his way, or gained independence.

I've reached the extent of what's currently written FWIW.

Understanding one's best interests doesn't mean they're aligned though! If only one body can achieve Fang Yuan's goal, then the best interest only goes as far as "cooperate until we must betray each other to gain eternal life, or merge if possible", which works well enough until all enemies are defeated and eternal life is in reach, yet at no point does FY or any of his clones seem to consider what is to be done at such a juncture. The problem of sharing non-fungible resources is so innate to any clone story in my opinion that it's a travesty for such an otherwise thoughtful author writing such a cynical story to ignore it and just treat the clones as free powerups.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats