What is your Major Determinism Malfunction?

There’s a kind of float – a sense people are detached from how you understand an idea, but what is that detachment, it’s left as a floating variable. A hovering question mark.

Plus on top of that, when someone comes out with something, you can’t be sure that’s what everyone thinks. But hey, someone made a video, so there’s enough commitment there to aim at.

Warning: This post dips into some semi industrial grade nihilism. It gets fairly caustic.

It’s at 215 seconds, if this thing isn’t embedding properly.

Responsibility and punishment don’t really make sense?

How were they supposed to make sense? What were they, just some sense of rising vengeance or something? Never mind what that rising emotion did, just let it rise and manifest physically?

“If we’re just a product of our past then we don’t really choose to do the things we do”

I honestly can’t get my head around this, really – not in one singular vein. Part of it I think is just hard wired excuse making. Got an idea for making an excuse? Express it! If it works, you get out of a lot of bad stuff. If it doesn’t work, the caloric effort of breathing a few words was very low. Low chance of working but low cost of making the effort to begin with Vs perhaps avoiding big bad stuff == making lame excuse.

Another angle I try to get it from is best described as there being like two words – one where we are creatures of positive and negative feedback – you touch the hot plate, you scald your fingers, you don’t touch it again. The other is the exact same world, but from the perspective of a creature that is unaware it is a creature of positive and negative feedback. So in this ‘world’ the creature just ‘does things’, to quote the Joker. They choose, they don’t come from a compilation of hotplates and sundaes. Imagine suddenly taking away the idea of ‘free choice’. What would such a creature navigate from then, in regards to a legal system? Nothing, of course. The legal system is to them an expression of vengeance (or something). And it’s for that purpose because…vengeance! ‘Choice’ is a product of the imaginary plane of existence not at all involving being a compilation of +/- feed backs.

The idea of a penal system that’s basically like repairing broken mechanisms, that’s just off the radar for people in this ‘world’. But fair enough, the penal system as of this present day doesn’t do that – in fact it breaks mechanisms worse than before. But that kind of speaks of a commitment far beyond this video.

But anyway, ‘Oh why would it make sense for anyone to suffer, oh! How can we be punished for something we didn’t choose?’.

It’s like saying you should only go through a treatment if you made a pact with the devil. No devil means no treatment, right? Once the devil – ie, choice – is gone, how can you be punished (/have your negative feedback systems stimulated (and be locked away from slightly more sane society))?

Well, I guess the devil is gone, but the deep blue sea that there is no compilation of negative and positive feedback, that’s still there in this second world. Things get pretty wonky when you remove only part of the supernatural ecology.

And completely butcher the idea of determinism. Putting it into major malfunction. Or at least how I understand the word.

Including completely butchering the idea of complexity in those negative and positive feedbacks. The many, many scales involved, each tipping onto other scales, which tip onto other scales and so on. Sometimes in a loop. A deep complexity so rich that made making up imaginary worlds where there are no scales at all both absurd and yet makes sense to operate from – you don’t know how your computer works, how the internet works. But that thin knowledge you have that gets you the images on screen that you want, you just focus on that – and ignore the greater complexity. And so mankind ignores the greater complexity of its own positive and negative feedback system. It’s a positive feedback to ignore ones own methods of positive feedback. Ignorance is bliss.

Which means, until sufficiently advanced technology is deployed, there may as well be hope. You don’t get determinism when thinking ‘oh, it’s all just an iteration of the past!’. Sure, determinism’s hope is like some sort of monstrous version of what you’d call hope – like Frank Castle is a monstrous form of justice. Behind the fantasy second world stands something real, but twisted, mutilated and spindled in comparison.

But while the deep blue sea remains, the devil soon enough rises yet again.

 

 

Advertisements

How is Artificial Meat more Humane?

If artificial meat is ‘more humane’, what does that mean? That for millions of years were were being inhumane?? But we just didn’t talk about it or something? Just kind of overlooked it – maybe just gave the impression it was actually okay to butcher animals for meat? But suddenly if you can produce artificial meat then you can be ‘more humane’? It’d be like saying new technology X can make you less of a criminal – and maybe you are like ‘I was doing anything criminal at all to begin with??’

Thoughts provoked by a recent SMBC comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/bioreaction

 

Player Feedback and Inherent Meaning Worlds

Just a quick thought. Take it that some players have little to say on what they want to see in games. I wonder if it is because they are looking for an inherently meaningful world?

An inherently meaningful world would, if taking its behavior from intuition, have an inherent destiny that draws the character (which is to say, the players externalized expression of their desires) to what they want to happen.

Where as just saying they want X to happen might feel ‘cheap’ for it to happen. ‘As if it wasn’t real’

So then there’s this sort of silent optimism, as they wait for their shining special time to come. Whatever it actually is. I dunno, can you Vulcan mind read people?

I dunno, I always figured you could spit ball, throw out ideas and get feedback after doing a thing. But at this point, if what I’m describing is ever the case (hopefully I’m wrong and it’s not), then there is never feedback beyond disappointment. Of the million things they might like, you can only basically give one thing. So you have a one in a million chance. Pretty much waste of time odds.

All waiting for that shining star, ‘real’ destiny.

 

 

Witless Poem

It’s curious, the bent between…not actual signal to noise but instead signal to reception.

The billowing urgency, the message, the rising tide.

Vs

The pointlessness of the transmission. Dial a random phone number and speak into it without listening.

The same.

Grasp. Reach. Traction. Point. Morale. Effort. Institutionalized thieves, setting us against us and collecting the pittances into their own pocket.

(How many man hours are put into youtube? Yet who gains the profit?

But yet more people flock still.

They see glamour, when glamour is no longer attached to food and shelter.

They can’t see past their seeing. Which is the message.

And if you want to pass on a message, hand over your man hours to the thief)

Traction.

And the silence in attempting to figure traction, when traction is all about not being silent.

Have I dialed your number?

Simulationism – gaming with the front of the brain turned off?

I was watching something on the brain by Susan Greenfield (she’s a baroness, lol!).

It was on a different subject, but she was describing how a three year old child, if asked what ‘Out, out, brief candle’ means, they’d say it means if you blow on a candle hard enough, it goes out.

There is no dimension of symbology and metaphor for them.

And then I happened to be thinking about simulationism and how people get uptight about ‘it’s not realistic!’ or such. I happened to be thinking that, because I had a dream where the landlord had put our house up for rent. Except the house in my dream wasn’t quite the same as the house I’m actually in. Yet that wasn’t the point, was it?

Except perhaps for gamers heavily inclined towards sim, as much as the three year old has no further dimension to the saying, a simulationist just imagines without any further dimension. Just literalist imagining. No metaphor, no symbology. Indeed Susan Greenfield says the frontal cortex is to do with metaphor and such – so simulationism? Gaming with the front part of your brain turned off?

Interestingly she also says the frontal cortex only starts to really switch on and light up at around age twenty.

Out, out, brief candle!

Emotional roots

There’s more than a few bits in the prince of nothing novels where he refers to something like men take the wreckage of what has become, then call it their own choice and declare that to be themselves.

I was idling through elfwood and saw this. One of the comments is ‘How did she die?’.

That’s the human mind – not asking why it grieves over a dead love to begin with, but asking how did she die. Just taking the wreckage of what has happened and going on from there, pursuing why she died, rather than pursuing why it was a concern at all that she died, to begin with. Your roots may as well determine your destination, but we ignore our emotional roots and simply act as extensions of them.

Words bitten back: Certainty

From here

Specifically

I’ll give this one last shot and I’m done.

Do you think I’m wrong in detecting a ‘I’ll give this one last shot, because I’m absolutely certain I’m right on this…there is no room for doubt in my mind. I can not be wrong at all on this at all’

Even Richard Dawkins, who raves about Evolution, will actually provide you methods to disprove his beloved theory, like ‘Fossilized Rabbits in the Precambrian’ (I think that was the time period – it was definately a time period they shouldn’t show up in. Comments left will prompt me to find the reference).

I mean, I don’t think it means one more shot at understanding the details of any evidence against it, as the rest of the post is just trying to add more evidence for it, rather than asking questions or such.

Here’s a quote from me, which has probably been said in the past, but I have paralel developed it.

“The man who is absolutely certain is the man who does not care what happens if he is wrong”