This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We are talking about a world where you can turn into a giant spider right?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're biologically immortal.
So strong disagreement. Exploration is far more important to an immortal society than exploitation. You have forever to figure out what you like most. So you SHOULD try out being a giant spider. Trying out everything should be normalized.
The metaphor is becoming unwieldy and much hinges on precisely what is meant by turning yourself into a spider. If it's not just cosmetics then it isn't clear to me a human consciousness can run on enlarged spider architecture. If it can't then there are many reason one might not want to try out being a giant spider as it is likely to be a one way trip. And if it can, and we're able then it seems certain we'd be technologically advanced enough for you to run your exploration in virtual worlds and need not burden normal society with any downside of your experimentation. If you see any difference between doing this exploration in total isolation vs doing it when others need to validate it then you've found the objection. People do not want to be coerced into validating everything for many reasons such as doing so reduces the value of their validation to zero.
Hmm, well this is interesting. Firstly, I do think my metaphysical positions on identity are part of why it's so easy for me to have my positions around this. I think of identity as very modular and ultimately rooted in teleology and memory. That is, if your memories and goals haven't been irreversibly destroyed, you aren't really dead. I'm fairly certain we're at a tech level where Americans are effectively immortal already. Memes are the DNA of the soul- that is not dead which can eternal lie- the internet is a phylactery.
As for running your exploration in a simulation- Yeah I think we're already sort of there and the technology is getting better and better. VR does need to be more embodied to be "complete" which may not be viable for centuries, but... you can already make a spider-sim preeety easily with current tech. It just takes a few weeks of gamedev. And you can also show up as a spider in all video calls. I definitely think people should start out with that before going full spider.
That is reasonable. I actually want my validation to mean things too. And in the short term some of it is also necessary. We need some form of, preferably non-coercive, information transfer that keeps systems actually working. People need to make the food. Money is a form of validation with respect to economic production (insofar as the economic system is doing its job). Long-term- I don't want to force people to validate things. But I also don't want to force people to need validation. I want things to be more consensual than that.
If people want to have the value of their validation be non-zero in my utopia, they can, but they have to find the people who care about their opinions on principle or out of respect.
Of course, personally, I'm going to want to join up with a group that is really into morphological exploration and reward one another with validation for doing stuff like making spider bodies. But it's fine if other people never interact with my community and want to be in places with different validation norms. I... don't have strong opinions on how early people should get exit rights and information about other societies. But if we really are immortal I'm willing to be patient. In the year 10,000 I expect I'd give the neo-Amish a full human lifespan if they wanted before tempting them with the posthuman afterlife.
But if what people really want is... the value of their validation to be inherently non-zero due to non-consensual forces? Like- "You have to keep working for me because you need food" or "you have to do what we say because we have a monopoly on your shelter." and... they're in this system without exit rights or it being opt in? I'm not a fan of that. Short-term- some of it is necessary but we should occasionally be double checking and asking if it's really necessary. Long-term I want enough individual capability and post scarcity that I can print my own food, shelter, and printers from free environmental resources.
I'm not sure to what degree people agree with me there and to what degree people just really value having non-consensual influence over others. I hear things about the stereotypical middle manager that give me concerns about the central goals of some humans.
This is itself a very idiosyncratic definition of "immortal" and I really don't think it's bringing more understanding to justify how unusual it is. When I say immortal I mean life without end, or at least without end outside of my control. Under your deifnition simply being alive and doing anything makes one immortal due to chaos theory.
I pretty heavily disagree that were anywhere near simulating what it's like to be a spider. Perhaps you mean human made to resemble a spider?
This might get right down to the core. It's my firm belief that there is more to the core of being something like a spider, Ior a woman for that matter, than mere resemblance. When a male wants to be a woman he's doing that wanting with the brain of a male, to change to a female includes changing the male brain into a female brain which itself destroys the identity. It's difficult to put into words how impossible this all is. There are things that you, as a coherent identity, simply cannot experience. There are walls that even with the most fantastic technology cannot be breached. A real, actually transformation of a human into a giant spider is fundamentally just killing a human and reconstituting the mass into a spider. It would in no real way be you.
Well no. Under my definition, you are your pattern insofar as your pattern is relevant. When I shed cells and get new ones the human doesn't die because its pattern is maintained. When the human dies but, as a result of my efforts an agent that pursues my goals and has my memories remains, I haven't died because those are the parts of the pattern I define as constituting me. This is life without end. It's just my life without end, as opposed to the human's life without end.
I would also note that my position on the star trek transporter problem is that no-one has died at all. Not you nor the human. If you were to give me a button that makes a philosophical clone of me and then kills one of us at random, and pay me a dollar every time I press it, I would press it over and over until my finger gets tired. It's just free money.
I get what you're saying with regards to actually being turned into a giant spider being death, but you are envisioning something very all or nothing. You can keep the human memories, switch out the visual cortex with a spider visual cortex, switch out the instinct structures with spider instinct structures, switch out the body with a giant spider body, keep the parts of your brain capable of higher abstraction as a side module-
Agents are modular mathematical structures. "I"/"ego" are incredibly personal identity structures that refer to that which your system keeps fighting to keep alive. For me that's my goals and memories and the drive to achieve new intense emotions. So there are large swaths of this form and mind that could be swapped out without editing or violating my ego. When moving to a spider, I will pick and choose the parts I keep and the parts I remove- and naturally I will choose to keep the parts that I define as being that which constitute me.
But yes this isn't a pure spider experience. It's more of a hybridization. The only parts of being a spider that you can simulate in the near future are social presentation and lifestyle. And a human obtaining a pure spider experience is an even harder problem ... I agree with your argument in the strongest case, if you just reincarnate as a random spider, that's just a random spider. But what should be possible are a few less absolute unifications with spiderness.
Creating a hybrid architecture as previously discussed, using legacy goals and memories.
Appropriating the memories of a random spider, then experiencing the closest possible qualia translation of those memories into a human mental architecture.
Simulation capturing a spider in your human neurons.
Telepathically linking with a spider and experiencing being a human experiencing a spider experiencing a human.
I expect my ego to eventually shift to encompass an over-self encapsulating an untold number of architectures.
I'm going to be a hive mind in essence.
This human I live inside is very happy to hear this. It looks forward to its integration.
I disagree with both of these positions you've taken for separate reasons but also think they're difficult to reconcile with each other. The teleporter portion is an old debate that I'm on the other side of. But the slowly change myself into a spider part seems to undermine all the even decent arguments for the teleporter hypothesis. If you're your pattern then fundamentally altering your pattern in this was is simply death. You'd need something tortured even for dualists to salvage it.
You aren't your pattern per se. "You" are the facets of reality that you care about. For most agents those parts include the continuation of their agency in some form. But they can also include anything else. The drug Salvia Divinorum for example, makes it possible to perceive yourself as the exact pattern of your visual cortex, causing you to stay perfectly still to avoid killing yourself by changing your field of view. Or it can make you perceive yourself as being the entire room, and so on.
To put it another way, the self is an illusion, (not qualia. Those aren't an illusion but are not "you" unless they matter to you.) but the ship of Theseus will continue to possess the parts that the ongoing process that descends from you refuses to swap out. That thing, the fact of egos causing certain properties to persist, is also not an illusion.
This is close to a pragmatic tautology. There isn't some additional self that can be lost when you remove parts you don't want in my worldview. There are things that can and will be lost, don't get me wrong, you don't care though, because they aren't what you care about. The self is the parts you want. Asking "what if removing the parts of myself that I don't want makes me not 'me'?" is like asking- "what if changing this list sorting function to a different list sorting function makes it not a list sorting function?" It's nonsense. The thing that makes it a list sorting function is that it is a list sorting function. The thing that makes you, you, is that you continue to have the properties that you declare by fiat are you and must be kept.
You, are not a single shape. You, are a self-defined category of shapes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This sounds close enough to an argument for forcing everyone into virtual reality so that they don't bother society with any abnormalities.
Everyone? No. Pedophiles? Sure. Surely you recognize there are matters of degree between abnormal and being turned into a giant spider. I get the impression that many people like this think they're main characters in an anime and are looking to conscript a supporting cast from the general population. I'm only saying what should be obvious, they are not entitled to the affirmation and support of others. We cannot all be main characters with a supporting cast, it doesn't work. If your exploration requires the support of the rest of us then it should at least be pro-social itself and I don't see a giant spider as anything in that direction.
You're drawing an equality sign between "requires the support of the rest of us" and "allowed to exist in physical reality".
This thread is about support.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link