CloudHeadedTranshumanist
No bio...
User ID: 2056
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
No it is because both are a result of mass movements that reasonable people see the folly of but unable to stop, because they would be persecuted by ideological zealots
Ok. It's too many times at this point. Too many of you are saying this stuff.
Where do the TRA's post?
I have to go see what the people you are all actually referring to are about- because my mission- is to understand what is going on- and clearly, there is a whole third side that I have not actually ever spoken with. There is no way I can ever deescalate any of this- without knowing who these TRAs are. Because they do not appear to be my trans faggot friends in California and Seattle- because those guys are just trying to pass and write code and shitpost and find doms like normal sane autistic 120 IQ nerd people.
Also-
For the rest of your points
No I wouldn't fuck the kid- but I don't think transition goes even 5% as badly even 1% as often (but then I'm probably > 90% in num(trans friends) on this site).
Responses to suicidal ideation should account for perverse incentives.
And I don't trust any of the options- but my ordering of who I trust not to fuck up choices about children's bodies is:
Good_Parents/Empathetic_Mentors->Teens->Society->8-12yo->Neglectful/Manipulative_Parents->0-7yo->Evolution/Nature.
in that order.
I'm hoping we can get a 100% empathetic mentor rate within 10 years by implementing them with AI and then I'll feel a lot better about this whole imperfect people raising children thing.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
What do you mean by "Germany isn't really an agent capable of desiring anything"
Do you mean it doesn't have qualia? What do you mean by "it doesn't have qualia."
Surely you think the humans have qualia.
Do you not agree that those human interactions constitute 'germany'? They seem to identify as 'germany'.
Sure, they aren't agents like you or I, they have way more qualia spread across distributed processing units interacting in often uncoordinated ways.
But if we want to really figure out what "germany" is doing and why, we have to trace back all of the processing that led to the outcome, and that includes a lot of tracing of human qualia. But- and heres the important part- not all of the qualia.
Not all of the qualia of Frank-Walter Steinmeier contribute to the behavior of Germany. Only some of them contribute to the actions we all identify as the actions of Germany. Only some of them identify as Germany. Maybe Frank-Walter Steinmeier's ego is so strong, and Germany's weak enough, that he barely Identifies as Germany at all.
Egregores- usually refers to something stronger. The sense of identity is more unified. The hive mind is more interconnected. The mob shares more of its cognition. A substantial number of Christians have a God tulpa and in antiquity Catholics received systemic back-propagation flowing through the church in a centralized manner. There are systems that use humans to hold their consciousness and propagate and execute their goals. It is important to understand this. Because we live in one of them.
Refusing to reify our God with a human name means it is less likely to appear to the psychotics as a spirit, but having no body also makes it harder to kill.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Ok. So. You said they're equally foul. Was that hyperbole? I'm not clear on how you got there. Do you think the two victims are equally traumatized?
Why do you think the experiments are similar? Because they both involve difficult to reverse body modification?
Do you think whether or not the child says they want something initially is completely irrelevant to how ethical it is? That only what they think later matters? Do you have the same position on- say, women who consent to sex in the moment but decide later that they didn't want sex and they were coerced into it? Do you think that is 'equally foul' to violent rape?
Forget changing your mind, right now, I'm either not grasping your foulness metric at all or simply not believing it's your actual metric.
I'm not a big believer in changing minds via debate anyway. It's more effective to change them via friendship and familiarity and positive experiences.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I don't have much to say to this because I agree with too much of it.
There is something we both believe. Eventually the chrysalis will exist and a man will be able to climb inside and emerge, at least superficially, as a seamless and beautiful woman. Where it will take a DNA test or CT, if even that and surely eventually not, to be found as originally male. Where we diverge is this: you think this moment will be the great and final realization of the trans movement while I understand it will be what buries it forever.
Bury is a strange word to use but yes. There will be no movement after that. There will just be people whose problems were solved by the chrysalis and people who learned that they had a different problem that the chrysalis failed to solve. When transformation is trivial it becomes the diagnosis.
But I also agree that transformation is not trivial today. It is a process with costs. You say I consider the person too much. But what you describe is a scenario where I consider what they say, but still fail to see them. Until the chrysalis is a trivial procedure... I agree. The person needs to be understood in full. But this is not easy. For someone to be seen they have to be known and loved. And the person who sees them needs to have insight that exceeds that of what even they know of themselves. Or able to guide them through unraveling and exploring their own motivations and experiences.
We need more passive mentors with more time and more insight than what many parents are de facto able to provide.
I am compelled again to stop posting and continue working on my assistant. We don't need AGI for this. AI should suffice.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Arguably coercive? My friend. We live in a society. It's always been coercive. You see progressives say that they want more diverse sets of people to be permitted to exist, and conservatives say they want to be allowed to force people to all fit a certain mold, and you call the former coercive?
Very well. It may well be. We live in a society until the day we are all so powerful that we no longer need to and can live in deep intergalactic space off the skin of our hydrogen collectors. But don't tell me the society crafted by our forefathers isn't just as coercive if not moreso.
Holy writ? No not by everyone. I expect combat. I expect culture war. I would prefer a peaceful unfolding. But I am here to change the world. Not to coddle it.
I don't expect- I think our world is built up from the tragedies of the violent birth of our species into a hostile world. Our precedents are the sacrifices we have made to keep ourselves alive. And even thinking about it costs energy. Costs scarce resources. Time spent arguing over whether it is time to remove Chesterton's fence is time not spent growing food. The legal system costs millions of dollars and the time of our best and brightest just to print and execute precedent at a grueling rate. I get that it's not cheap. I get that it has value that we have paid dearly for.
But- this is probably because I am an American born in the Live Free or Die state. But I expect people to not terminally value fences- to merely instrumentally value them. Even though I do understand- you can terminally value just about anything.
What I want... I want people to have... reasons beyond inertia or precedent for why things are bad. I want people to actually be interested in understanding why Chesterton's fence is there, and remain aware of when it can, or should be torn down. They don't have to be objectively correct. I don't expect all humans to have the same understanding of good and evil or the same predictions of the consequences of actions. I just want everyone to remain aware and humor the idea that there is a point at which we outgrow the fences we have erected for our safety. I want people to imagine when tearing it down would be viable, so that they can give one another firm expectations of what they have to build if they really need it torn down. If the suppression of trans people and enforcement of gender norms hadn't been so coercive, if conservatives could have made some compromises and set firm expectations for what trans people have to do before they're allowed to remove that fence-
If we had been cooperating on this from the start with clear expectations then this culture war never would have happened.
Of course this is a fantasy. Our history didn't build us up as people who could have cooperated like that.
Skulls? I have seen millennia of skulls. Skulls of the strange and the outliers. Skulls of the weird slaughtered in the name of conformity to make sure food could be grown. Are we simply looking at different skull piles here? I get that sometimes, when the weird grow in power, walking off the beaten path, the food stops getting made, and the skulls become myriad. I am told "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". And I agree, but I also contend- "Do not let the good be the enemy of the better."
Morality? Everyone has one. Get yours now. 50% off. If you don't like having a conscience get rid of it. Don't worry. I won't get rid of mine. If you hurt someone I'll just kill you. If you can erase your conscience without doing that- or want to die- go for it. That's not a threat. It's more... this all just seems so simple to me. We are all here. Just don't let go of the parts you want to keep and they'll stick around. Yes. It doesn't escape me that conservatives are doing the same thing- to a degree. I can appreciate that trans people may have pushed too deeply too quickly for systems to adapt. I can appreciate that where exactly I draw the line is somewhat arbitrary, that some people might not want to let go of the gender binary for reasons more terminal in addition to the pragmatic. But my concern is more the lack of interest some people have in letting the systems ever change to support more types of people. Some people don't seem to be looking for how the world can become better, they are only looking at how the world can become worse.
I have a fetish for novelty. Definitely. Novelty and intensity. Glory, expression, fire, intensity, fearlessness.
Ah, yes. perhaps I do expect other humans to at least taste a hint of why those things are good. Even if they weigh them against other values.
I think conservatives have a fetish for safety. I think many of them have very reasonable takes around safety and sustainability. But I think some of them have a fear-driven blindness to almost everything else that makes the universe wonderful. I think conservatives, as the leaders on caring about safety and sustainability- should have been the ones thinking about global warming. Not necessarily cutting emissions earlier- there were real economic tradeoffs there that merited consideration. But actually recognizing and thinking about the problem. But instead it was fully denied because of the implication that we might have to change the way we live our lives over it. Something has gone horribly wrong- when precedent is the thing blinding us to the safety it was built for. When safety is the thing stopping us from living the lives it was built to preserve.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
...
Sure. I think there are limits to the diversity mathematics can express given a finite universe or effectively finite universe given speed of light restrictions.
But like- I think we are like ants in a terrarium. We have explored a single drop in the ocean of possibilities. There are game theoretic considerations that will probably hold across all agents, but the things that are obviously bad for humans right now are not obviously universally bad in all possible situations.
I think if you want to argue that humans are not infinitely malleable "arbitrarily large is not infinity" is... technically correct. But of no use to the conservative.
I would expect them to go for "that's not human" instead.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
No. I think enjoying the hike is neat. I also think enjoying the cable car is neat. I also think enjoying the experience of being a fly and laying eggs in a carcass would be neat.
If the concern is that your way of life will be eradicated, that's understandable, but if your concern is that your children might not choose the same way of life as you if given the choice...
Well... I guess... I sortof get that? It's just... It feels like the empire of Mankind in 40k. Treating everything that isn't human like a resource or an enemy or an infection. Being proud to be human isn't bad but- does that have to mean you have to prevent others from choosing to be a fly? Do some people just find... such an inherent lack of meaning in anything else to the point of wanting to treat it like atoms that could be used to make more humans? Like all humans are just bodies for holding their culture? Or like their children are just bodies for holding their culture? Are some people really just humanclippers? christianclippers?
I can understand the premise. I have a primal, echoing understanding of the premise. I just don't want to assume something so totalizing. I don't think most conservatives feel like that. It's just... a primal terror. The thought that most people might actually be such totalizing existences that they would leave the cosmos just as empty as it is today. Merely tiled with the same thing over and over.
I think there are better conservative positions, like- "we're not ready for this- yet. And won't be in our lifetimes so give up on it."
The conservative position that humans are not infinitely malleable is... either intended in the context of our lifetimes or just ridiculously shortsighted. We evolved from single celled organisms and we'll do it again.
Social progress is the ongoing process of distilling the baby out of the bathwater. Separating good from evil, and adopting the good while negating and subverting the evil.
I'm not saying everything should be permitted now. Far from it.
"Which technological advancements will make pedophilia viable?"
-
Well. Better systems to make sure they never fuck actual children.
-
Deepfaking technology.
-
Android technology.
Viability timeline estimation - 100 years
Will they ever be allowed to fuck actual children?
"Which technological advancements will make adults having intercourse with children viable?"
Very difficult to say. The costs are too high to explore...
the costs... are too high... to explore...
-
Absurdly predictive theory of child development and trauma formation.
-
Much better trauma treatment in cases where things go wrong, to the point that there are no known cases of even illegal violent rape that leave residual trauma after a week.
-
Enough supervision that every instance can be monitored even as it becomes socially normalized.
Viability timeline estimation - 1000 years or post singularity equivalent.
...
Will there even be human children in 1000 years or will pedophilia just mean intercourse with day old AI forks? Is sexting a fresh LLM instance pedophilia? Nah. Nah the concept just falls apart at that point. It's like asking ChatGPT whether its a man or a woman.
[EDIT] regarding your edit.
I think desires can be conditionally bad, but not innately bad. But this is usually a moot point. We live in conditions after all.
Having a strong, debilitating desire to be a squid as a 16th century peasant is not very useful, and you should work towards mitigating that until it is not debilitating and accept that you are probably going to be a human your whole life. Though- it would be fine to also accept that you still have the desire, if you can channel it to something tangible. Maybe that peasant becomes a famous squid painter. Maybe he just makes his family just a little richer through hard work so that maybe his children can follow their dreams one day.
It would be more accurate to say- my desire is to see humanity moving with the intention of shifting conditions so that more and more desires are supported, and fewer and fewer desires are bad.
It's less about the gratification of desires and more about them not being frustrated as they unspool into acts of creation that give birth to intense and unique existences and experiences.
There is a sort of desire that becomes a religion. A driving need. A purpose. I don't know how many people have even experienced what I'm talking about. It's difficult to describe because thinking about it is placing me in an intense state of... blissful thirst for new sensations. I need to go.
So? I'm sorry, sure, elites and politicians do a have disproportionate cultural impact. But I would expect the people who build all of the technology that runs your life and live next to the people who make your movies and work for the billionaires paying into your charities to also have some effect. Regardless of what effect society thinks they should have. Coders are low status yes. Because status doesn't effect how good the code you write is (well it does but mostly your status among other coders. Where the trans people who make it to silicon valley tend to be relatively high status.)
This is why trans people become coders. Because it's a form of power that tends to focus less on existing status structures and builds new ones instead.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I have to admit- I just think everyone deserves support and I suspect the fight will keep going forever or until conservatives kill all the abnormal people or stop trying to bully people who want to surgically alter themselves into giant spiders out of existence.
It's not going to end because um... why should it end exactly? I have this feeling of an underlying premise that there is an amount of weird that is... too weird. And... I just... don't have that premise. If something has pragmatic issues that prevent it from being pragmatic for society to support it, my first thought is "what technological advancements will cause support of this to be viable" not "lets suppress it forever."
But some people seem to see "technical advancements have caused support for this to be viable" and go into moral panic mode. Why?
Why are some people unhappy seeing the boundaries of the human condition expand? Why does it make some people uncomfortable?
What is wrong with your brains? Or is it me? What's wrong with my brain? Something is clearly wrong with someone's brain here.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Nobody ever thinks of themselves like this.
Uh. You gonna qualify that at all or? Because I do. I and my besties are all hosts to the cutest memeplex <3
In fact, sometimes I feel more like I'm the memeplex than the human. Is it not transparently obvious that a person is but a context embedded in meat? Of course... the meat is part of the context too.
What actually is an ordinary human reason? ['This highly productive and well propagated system of thought called 'formal logic' says it must be true.', 'My friend said so and I trust him.', 'Experts have been right in the past, they probably are this time too.', 'The last three times I interacted with someone of his race they were just assholes to me.']
I don't think OP has a singular central point. They have like, three points, derived from a central model cluster they're sharing.
Yeah. I agree with that. So these kids really wanted their eye color changed and requested a well vetted process be used to change it, but later decided they didn't ever want that and had just been pressured by those around them to-
oh... Nazi experiments on inmates in a concentration camp?
Ok yes I do see one minor difference here. One of them was a kid who was allowed to pursue things she now regrets, and now feels pressured and misled into doing without adequate understanding of the consequences. The other was very explicitly forced experimentation on threat of death, often followed by actual death anyway, of a brand new untested procedure, in a nazi concentration camp.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
It is also possible to impose a view of righteousness while being in the minority in a system that does work on democratic principles. For example, a better coordinated group focusing all their power on a single topic would be able to make a dent in that dimension of the Overton window, even if they have less overall power and less overall influence on the change vector over all dimensions of the Overton window.
Likely your actual object level beliefs better support your point- I'm just reading the implication of a very strange definition of democratic principles from your phrasing.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
No. You don't need a replacement birthrate of humans in the short term. You just need replacement productivity. It will take 10 years minimum for new children to be useful.
Other forms of productivity replacement can get there faster, and having a diminished workforce drives that innovation.
Human birthrate will level out once population is low enough, it's not an extinction threat.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
You can go with a definition like that for identifying as Goth or something, but the moment a cluster emerges, so will a set of defining features. If I can be Goth without taking on the Goth appearance, listening to the music, or doing anything else that Goths do, the word is meaningless again.
The word is meaningless with respect to you. But as long as "that guy is goth" is a statement that is able to update my audience's priors towards- you know. The people you and I think of as goth, the word still has meaning.
I do think you need some level of ability to say "yeah that guy calls himself goth but... he only wears bright colors. So... uh... you know."
But in practice you rarely need to use this, because the guy wearing bright colors doesn't call himself goth very often, and the fact that brightcolor guys 'usually' don't gall them selves goth, means that there is still a lot of specificity in the word goth, even if you religiously humor every bright shirted 'goth's identity.
Similarly the traditional meaning of the word 'woman' doesn't totally break down until 50% of women are men who look and act like men. And this is never going to happen. Don't get me wrong, the worst case scenario for 'woman' as an identity is still pretty bad if you favor the traditional one. But it's only going to be the most fem and fem-aspirational men and a handful of extreme outliers. Perhaps it might eventually mutate further in some still stranger direction, but it's never going to cease to be interpretable as a statistical statement about someone's likely attributes.
Sometimes I am frustrated by this whole concept because.... in terms of wanting the interpretability to hold- that breaks down no matter how you change gender norms. If you call a fully transitioned trans man a 'woman', I still have to deal with the word 'woman' meaning almost nothing relevant to my conception of what that's supposed to entail in this context. Dude this guy has a six inch beard and is made of muscle and speaks in a gruff voice and says he's a man what are you talking about? I do not need to be told he has XX chromosomes and was born with a vagina. I need actionable information please.
But similarly, I do think it's reasonable to treat this like the goth case. "That person is a woman, but, they don't like... have a womb. So... uh... you know."
Though I think its a real dick move to treat them poorly over it.
which is the source of the conflict with TERFs, I guess.
As for Terfs... I actually model Terfs as the opposite. Most Terfs are pro gender norms. The idea is that- being a woman is a pretty chill deal if you play by the conservative rules, in that you get an exclusion from competing with men on being one. There is some of the "You guys are reifying gender norms" stuff, but I see more of that from the leftist professors posting yet another hot gender take than the Terfs. Terfs tend to be perfectly happy wielding gender norms as a weapon against other women, trans or otherwise, in my experience. I see them more as a spiritual successor of the lesbian exclusionaries of second wave feminism. Though I do think there are more 'real' fears involved with accepting trans women than lesbian women.
I think the biggest problem with the passage you quoted is that neither the left nor the right are a singular ideological block with regards to their views on identity.
If man/woman is defined through self-identification, then the definition becomes recursive, and therefore useless. I have no idea whether or not I am a woman, because I don't know whether I identify as one, because I don't know what a woman is.
I don't buy this one though. You can totally have purely personally chosen definitions, because- well, because in a sense you are right. There's no such thing as a purely recursive identity. People choose identities because those identities mean something to them, those meanings are imbibed from the world. They don't go around pulling identities out of the aether. So the more meaningless an identity word becomes in the world, the fewer people choose it, and the fewer people choose it, the more meaningful it becomes. This creates a self-correcting balance on the amount of collapse in meaning an identity word can undergo, even if you let anyone choose to use any identity word.
You end up with a recursive algorithm for the definition similar to PageRank. Where the perceived definition of an Identity word is coordinated around the people who choose to use it, who choose to use it because it's meaning resonates with them, where the meaning resonates with them because people like them choose it.
This is related to your other point actually. I think it's motivated reasoning, but what those leftists are saying is that the shooter doesn't actually self-identify with the words they are saying. You can lie about your feelings and personal meanings, and self-identity is about feelings and personal meanings, not spoken words. It was a sort of conspiracy hypothesis that the shooter was just saying that they're enby as a personal psyop because they hate enbies.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I am totally game for this pro Yankee Jim world.
For me that's... sorta the whole point. Every identity is aspirationally valid. Trans rights are just a stepping stone for getting to the point where people will accept a friend who wants to be a hippopotamus when they grow up.
I don't know... I'm sure some Trans advocates would take offense to this analogy but.
I don't respect them? I dunno. There are always some people with bad takes. But in my experience trans people are at least more likely to be friend to all weirdos, what with being transgressive weirdos themselves.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I... mean... do we want to be reddit? Do we want more redditors?
You should probably post in places on reddit where people you want to join are present, not where everyone is, unless we want TheMotte to grow into a giant cluster of distinct interconnected interest groups that replaces Reddit.
TheMotte really isn't an alternative to reddit except for people exclusively using reddit for Motte adj subs.
Is there really no historical grievance if the victims are extinct?
I don't think that's enough. Historical grievances aren't just raised by the aggrieved party. They are raised by any party that benefits from saying "what we did in the past was vile".
Furthermore, there's a reason the full genocide route doesn't happen, and that's because the counterforce already exists in the past. The memetic counterforce that loses the war also sees itself as an aggrieved party, and continues its resistance, regardless to whether a genocide of the most central victims is successful.
A pure and complete genocide needs to be a pure and complete genocide not of the aggrieved party per se, but of the memetic counterforce.
This is similar to ResoluteRaven saying "You don't need to kill all of them, you just need to thoroughly assimilate them"
To put it in logical terms, ResoluteRaven is saying "Genocide is not necessary to prevent historical grievence, Assimilation is sufficient." And I am making the stronger claim, "Genocide is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent historical grievence. Assimilation is both necessary and sufficient."
Though my definition of Assimilation here is something like 'memetic genocide' of which actual genocide may be a component. Assimilation doesn't have to be nice to be game theoretically functional.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
It doesn't seem melodramatic to me. I mean, everyone knows what the current culture war is, it's clear which actions are enemy action. Propaganda is just the memes the enemy is spreading to further their cause and people are pointing at them.
Regardless of whether you think people should be censoring each other over the direction of their activism to begin with, I think it's perfectly sensible to say "This is clear enemy action" and use the word "Propaganda" for that once you are committed to this sort of combat.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
This seems like quibbling over the definition of "Just". Physically what you're doing is "Just saying words" but this isn't a defense because cognitively, your brain is assigning meaning to those words and wielding them with intent. There is no such thing as Just doing without meaning. Sure. Literally all you're doing observably is Just saying words, sure.
When someone says
There's no such thing as "just" telling people to not drink Bud Light, the context of doing so is common knowledge.
I think it's clear enough which of these they mean that we don't have to quibble about their usage of language.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Breaking through enough of a person's emotional knots to break them out of a social local optima.
Getting someone to make up with someone that they falsely thought hated them...
Getting someone to confess their love to someone they thought would reject them but is totally crushing on them...
That sort of thing.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Yes, but it wasn't unavoidable. Because he told you he was coming back with a knife. Such a case comes up in the video. I mean, I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction but still.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Sure.
Is it different for non-deadly force? Obviously its not Murder if noone dies and not attempted murder without intent.
But if Neely had lived, I'm not clear on whether Penny would have been charged with assault.
I'm mulling over the various perspectives...
There have been posts on Neely in past culture war threads along the lines of "We should be punching disruptive members of society more." there have been even more extreme takes along the lines of "Barbarians are not moral subjects. Kill em." There have been counter-takes that you don't want random citizens playing judge-jury-executioner. There have been takes like "The system should be dealing with this. Neely shouldn't have been on the streets."
More information about the legal realities at play give more texture to these takes.
Does anyone actually think like this? You know I can think of one Rat catholic that might take ideas seriously enough to follow through to that conclusion. But as far as I'm aware, most profilers who believe life begins at conception aren't utilitarians, they're into natural law. They're still going to hate IVF- but they won't really get started on it as a result of the number of zygotes being high, it will be a response to normalization of a practice outside of natural law. Its not a response to the number of zygotes being killed, its a response to the number of people killing the zygotes.
More options
Context Copy link