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 -
You have to ask the question of what a 'mental state' or equinamity really is, what is happening, what is worth doing. Let's say you made a human enlightened by, uh, hacking all their neurons out, and replacing them with the neurons of a squirrel that was enlightened. Maybe something was lost. Now let's say that the person became enlightened, in a sense, but a very minimal sense - they're precisely as enlightened as the enlightened squirrel is, and then carry on with their netflix-watching the next day. There's something confused here, surely? What if the 100iq-joe-the-janitor really does become as enlightened as the Buddha was - but still retains their desire for netflix, and continues to watch it and eat burgers and work as a janitor? I'm saying outside the context of that enlightenment relating to other parts of their life, it's basically meaningless. So - what is being enlightened, what does that mean, what more is being understood, and is anything being understood if said understanding is never used? And then - if these people are just cavorting in simulacra VR garden land for eternity, is enlightenment as valuable or meaningful there as it is in a complex world with significant demands and willed action? Compare to the enlightened rabbit vs human (or a pet rabbit vs wild rabbit!)
Right, but the 'non-self' and 'emptiness' and 'dependent origination' bits should indicate - there isn't anything to being human, aside from all the specific aspects and experiences and dependencies. What is there to humans, at all, that the AGI doesn't have? What's the difference? Not that there aren't any, but it's probably worth checking, and just saying the word 'human' doesn't necessarily mean anything. (and in the sense of "important to me" - i mean, it could just as well be true that 'watching netflix and playing overwatch' would be more important to you than 'universal basic equinamity'. But acting on that would be bad, because then nobody would be enlightened. Similarly, if your desires - at least as you describe them - are wrong, then you should simply act differently. And then those actions are, in retrospect, your desires. Desires in this sense do not exist, then, in a proper sense, they're just descriptions of specific ways one understands and acts)
I'm willing to say that enlightenment as I understand it is a sort of special state of equanimity, and commit to the idea that it's just as valuable now as it would be in an extremely wealthy society. Sure you aren't under significant demands, but you also have to resist intense luxury and as you say, VR garden lands. That would take a large amount of willpower itself.
I don't think we have anywhere near the understanding of these mental states to make these sorts of judgements. Sure right now the best we can do is discuss enlightenment in terms of 'non-being' etc etc, but eventually I believe we will have a better understanding of how to enter + exit these states and be able to communicate their qualities with much more fidelity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link