A lot of Wizards hold to an EvoPsych, Sociobiological, Darwinian worldview. But then where does that leave us as Wizard virgins? The whole goal and point of this viewpoint is sexual reproduction.
Sexual pleasure is the highest reward circuitry of the mammal, theres no point denying it. But these brains weren't meant to cope with the challenge of streaming HD VR porn. And thats were NoFap comes in. Where you see all these normie and potential normie men. Men with wives and gfs. Who give all that up because porn is so much better than the reality. And they are so torn up about it. Because they should like 3d reality meatspace more, but their brains don't.
So in that sense we as Wizards can admit that sexual pleasure is the cookie jar reward of evolution, but we stole it without doing our homework first.
What does this have to do with Super AI? Because in the very very distant future, long past the Terminator Singularity stage, when Super AI has processed every atom in the universe. It will all serve one utilitarian function. To maximize the pleasure of a gazillion simulated minds. Theres no need for a story or history to get mind to orgasm. Just skip all that to the moment of pleasure and make it eternal, a gazillion times over. And that is what the universe will be. The final fulfillment of the utilitarian calculus. The maximization of pleasure without pain.
So to fap to HD porn is to benefit from the primitive reward circuitry of evolution, but it is also to disconnect the pleasure from story and effort and suffering and to see to the future of the universe of Super AI and the Orgasmium (also known as hedonium)
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Orgasmium
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1413237-consider-an-ai-that-has-hedonism-as-its-final-goal
Sexual pleasure is the highest reward circuitry of the mammal, theres no point denying it. But these brains weren't meant to cope with the challenge of streaming HD VR porn. And thats were NoFap comes in. Where you see all these normie and potential normie men. Men with wives and gfs. Who give all that up because porn is so much better than the reality. And they are so torn up about it. Because they should like 3d reality meatspace more, but their brains don't.
So in that sense we as Wizards can admit that sexual pleasure is the cookie jar reward of evolution, but we stole it without doing our homework first.
What does this have to do with Super AI? Because in the very very distant future, long past the Terminator Singularity stage, when Super AI has processed every atom in the universe. It will all serve one utilitarian function. To maximize the pleasure of a gazillion simulated minds. Theres no need for a story or history to get mind to orgasm. Just skip all that to the moment of pleasure and make it eternal, a gazillion times over. And that is what the universe will be. The final fulfillment of the utilitarian calculus. The maximization of pleasure without pain.
So to fap to HD porn is to benefit from the primitive reward circuitry of evolution, but it is also to disconnect the pleasure from story and effort and suffering and to see to the future of the universe of Super AI and the Orgasmium (also known as hedonium)
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Orgasmium
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1413237-consider-an-ai-that-has-hedonism-as-its-final-goal
>What does Nofap and Super AI have in common?
Absolutely nothing.
>A lot of Wizards hold to an EvoPsych, Sociobiological, Darwinian worldview.
>The whole goal and point of this viewpoint is sexual reproduction.
No the "goal and point" of this viewpoint is to better understand the world and explain behavor. They are descriptive not prescriptive in nature.
>Sexual pleasure is the highest reward circuitry of the mammal
That is semantically and syntactically wrong. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and don't actually understand the the details of the subject, which are important. While I know what you are probably trying to say, the way you have said it shows a real ignorance of the subject. Please actually read about the nervous system and how the brain works and don't just skim it, actually read the text.
>But these brains weren't meant to cope with the challenge of streaming HD VR porn.
A assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>thats were NoFap comes in
No fap is is silly bro-logic self help bullshit that is completely unsupported by science.
>Where you see all these normie and potential normie men. Men with wives and gfs. Who give all that up because porn is so much better than the reality.
Actually it is pretty rare for most men to do that and when they do they don't cite that porn is so much better but that dealing with succubi has gotten so much worse and just isn't worth it to them. Hens the whole mgtow movement and the like.
>And they are so torn up about it.
Who is? I have seen no evedence of this and most people who willingly chose to go for porn over real succubi do so because they see it as a increase in happiness and major decrease in drama. Again, prime example is the mgtow movement.
>Because they should like 3d reality meatspace more, but their brains don't.
Who says this?
You are making more unsupported claims again.
>So in that sense we as Wizards can admit that sexual pleasure is the cookie jar reward of evolution, but we stole it without doing our homework first.
What the fuck even is this analogy?
>What does this have to do with Super AI?
Nothing but you are going to string some nonsense together anyway. Probably by fundamentally misunderstanding what "super AI" is or redefining words willy nilly to mean something they don't actually mean.
>Because in the very very distant future, long past the Terminator Singularity stage, when Super AI has processed every atom in the universe. It will all serve one utilitarian function. To maximize the pleasure of a gazillion simulated minds. Theres no need for a story or history to get mind to orgasm. Just skip all that to the moment of pleasure and make it eternal, a gazillion times over. And that is what the universe will be. The final fulfillment of the utilitarian calculus. The maximization of pleasure without pain.
This is complete non-sequitur based on nothing but some flight of fancy you have going in your head.
You are literally just making up poorly thought out nonsense based on nothing.
>So to fap to HD porn is to benefit from the primitive reward circuitry of evolution, but it is also to disconnect the pleasure from story and effort and suffering and to see to the future of the universe of Super AI and the Orgasmium
Are you high right now?
That literally makes no logical or rational sense.
>links
I see, you have been reading things out of context or you have missunderstood a great many things.
Ether way, your links to do not actually clarify your gibberish.
Absolutely nothing.
>A lot of Wizards hold to an EvoPsych, Sociobiological, Darwinian worldview.
>The whole goal and point of this viewpoint is sexual reproduction.
No the "goal and point" of this viewpoint is to better understand the world and explain behavor. They are descriptive not prescriptive in nature.
>Sexual pleasure is the highest reward circuitry of the mammal
That is semantically and syntactically wrong. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and don't actually understand the the details of the subject, which are important. While I know what you are probably trying to say, the way you have said it shows a real ignorance of the subject. Please actually read about the nervous system and how the brain works and don't just skim it, actually read the text.
>But these brains weren't meant to cope with the challenge of streaming HD VR porn.
A assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>thats were NoFap comes in
No fap is is silly bro-logic self help bullshit that is completely unsupported by science.
>Where you see all these normie and potential normie men. Men with wives and gfs. Who give all that up because porn is so much better than the reality.
Actually it is pretty rare for most men to do that and when they do they don't cite that porn is so much better but that dealing with succubi has gotten so much worse and just isn't worth it to them. Hens the whole mgtow movement and the like.
>And they are so torn up about it.
Who is? I have seen no evedence of this and most people who willingly chose to go for porn over real succubi do so because they see it as a increase in happiness and major decrease in drama. Again, prime example is the mgtow movement.
>Because they should like 3d reality meatspace more, but their brains don't.
Who says this?
You are making more unsupported claims again.
>So in that sense we as Wizards can admit that sexual pleasure is the cookie jar reward of evolution, but we stole it without doing our homework first.
What the fuck even is this analogy?
>What does this have to do with Super AI?
Nothing but you are going to string some nonsense together anyway. Probably by fundamentally misunderstanding what "super AI" is or redefining words willy nilly to mean something they don't actually mean.
>Because in the very very distant future, long past the Terminator Singularity stage, when Super AI has processed every atom in the universe. It will all serve one utilitarian function. To maximize the pleasure of a gazillion simulated minds. Theres no need for a story or history to get mind to orgasm. Just skip all that to the moment of pleasure and make it eternal, a gazillion times over. And that is what the universe will be. The final fulfillment of the utilitarian calculus. The maximization of pleasure without pain.
This is complete non-sequitur based on nothing but some flight of fancy you have going in your head.
You are literally just making up poorly thought out nonsense based on nothing.
>So to fap to HD porn is to benefit from the primitive reward circuitry of evolution, but it is also to disconnect the pleasure from story and effort and suffering and to see to the future of the universe of Super AI and the Orgasmium
Are you high right now?
That literally makes no logical or rational sense.
>links
I see, you have been reading things out of context or you have missunderstood a great many things.
Ether way, your links to do not actually clarify your gibberish.
>singularity
This is on the same level of speculating about fantasy worldbuilding. Shouldn't even be considered a philosophy.
This is on the same level of speculating about fantasy worldbuilding. Shouldn't even be considered a philosophy.
File: 1545830386847.png (535.67 KB, 1080x646, 540:323, 392797_spanglishhorse_chri….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>152782
>Because in the very very distant future, long past the Terminator Singularity stage, when Super AI has processed every atom in the universe. It will all serve one utilitarian function. To maximize the pleasure of a gazillion simulated minds. Theres no need for a story or history to get mind to orgasm. Just skip all that to the moment of pleasure and make it eternal, a gazillion times over. And that is what the universe will be. The final fulfillment of the utilitarian calculus. The maximization of pleasure without pain.
This just demonstrates how utilitarianism reduces to absurdity. The conclusion of utilitarianism is the entire experiential universe being a orgasm, this is the highest ideal possible. It's similar to transhumanism which just concludes in us flying around the galaxy blowing up star systems and building dyson spheres. Neither of these philosophies answer any questions.
>Because in the very very distant future, long past the Terminator Singularity stage, when Super AI has processed every atom in the universe. It will all serve one utilitarian function. To maximize the pleasure of a gazillion simulated minds. Theres no need for a story or history to get mind to orgasm. Just skip all that to the moment of pleasure and make it eternal, a gazillion times over. And that is what the universe will be. The final fulfillment of the utilitarian calculus. The maximization of pleasure without pain.
This just demonstrates how utilitarianism reduces to absurdity. The conclusion of utilitarianism is the entire experiential universe being a orgasm, this is the highest ideal possible. It's similar to transhumanism which just concludes in us flying around the galaxy blowing up star systems and building dyson spheres. Neither of these philosophies answer any questions.
"Sexual pleasure is the highest reward circuitry of the mammal" I think this is true when you are young and undeveloped, if you develop hobbies and passions those things can become more rewarding.
Me at 15 thought that sex is probably best thing ever, but 10 years later i changed my mind. But i never had sex so i can't be sure.
So if sex isn't highest reward ever your assumptions about evolutions of the universe is incorrect.
Me at 15 thought that sex is probably best thing ever, but 10 years later i changed my mind. But i never had sex so i can't be sure.
So if sex isn't highest reward ever your assumptions about evolutions of the universe is incorrect.
The entire universe will be remade into NEETs fapping in their virtual simulated basements
Neurological research has revealed that the effect of internet pornography on the human brain is just as potent—if not more so—than addictive chemical substances such as cocaine or heroin. In a statement before Congress, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, physicist, and former Fellow in Psychiatry at Yale, cautioned:
With the advent of the computer, the delivery system for this addictive stimulus [internet pornography] has become nearly resistance-free. It is as though we have devised a form of heroin 100 times more powerful than before, usable in the privacy of one’s own home and injected directly to the brain through the eyes. It’s now available in unlimited supply via a self-replicating distribution network, glorified as art and protected by the Constitution.
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/miscellaneous-resources/start-here-evolution-has-not-prepared-your-brain-for-todays-porn/
What fapping and the hedonium have in common is divorcing the reward circuitry of evolution from any Darwinian work or effort. Thats why it is such a poison to normies.
But it is also a much more EFFICIENT way to get pleasure. And thats why once Super AI takes over the universe, fulfilling its utilitarian mission statement, it will convert every atom in the universe into stimulating simulated minds with high octane pleasure with no work, effort, struggle, pain or story, essentially the entire universe is one big HD VR streaming porn.
With the advent of the computer, the delivery system for this addictive stimulus [internet pornography] has become nearly resistance-free. It is as though we have devised a form of heroin 100 times more powerful than before, usable in the privacy of one’s own home and injected directly to the brain through the eyes. It’s now available in unlimited supply via a self-replicating distribution network, glorified as art and protected by the Constitution.
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/miscellaneous-resources/start-here-evolution-has-not-prepared-your-brain-for-todays-porn/
What fapping and the hedonium have in common is divorcing the reward circuitry of evolution from any Darwinian work or effort. Thats why it is such a poison to normies.
But it is also a much more EFFICIENT way to get pleasure. And thats why once Super AI takes over the universe, fulfilling its utilitarian mission statement, it will convert every atom in the universe into stimulating simulated minds with high octane pleasure with no work, effort, struggle, pain or story, essentially the entire universe is one big HD VR streaming porn.
Here was our last #YesFap thread with more scientific citations
https://archive.is/uLYGt
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-affects-the-brain-like-a-drug/
https://archive.is/uLYGt
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-affects-the-brain-like-a-drug/
>What fapping and the hedonium have in common is divorcing the reward circuitry of evolution from any Darwinian work or effort. Thats why it is such a poison to normies.
>But it is also a much more EFFICIENT way to get pleasure. And thats why once Super AI takes over the universe, fulfilling its utilitarian mission statement, it will convert every atom in the universe into stimulating simulated minds with high octane pleasure with no work, effort, struggle, pain or story, essentially the entire universe is one big HD VR streaming porn.
This is seeming more and more like incoherent ramblings which each post made by OP.
I am done, I don't think he is the type that can be reasoned with or even able to discuss things in a coherent manor.
>But it is also a much more EFFICIENT way to get pleasure. And thats why once Super AI takes over the universe, fulfilling its utilitarian mission statement, it will convert every atom in the universe into stimulating simulated minds with high octane pleasure with no work, effort, struggle, pain or story, essentially the entire universe is one big HD VR streaming porn.
This is seeming more and more like incoherent ramblings which each post made by OP.
I am done, I don't think he is the type that can be reasoned with or even able to discuss things in a coherent manor.
Wait, do some people seriously not understand that when pleasure becomes the norm it stops being pleasure?
>>152797
Maybe the simulated minds would just blip into existence for a microsecond of orgasm and then blip out?
That doesn't sound appealing from our ape POV. But its all about the utilitarian calculus. So if that generates more pleasure than say a similated mind enjoying hedonium for a week, year, century, then thats what Super AI would do.
Maybe the simulated minds would just blip into existence for a microsecond of orgasm and then blip out?
That doesn't sound appealing from our ape POV. But its all about the utilitarian calculus. So if that generates more pleasure than say a similated mind enjoying hedonium for a week, year, century, then thats what Super AI would do.
File: 1545841148478.png (255.43 KB, 488x413, 488:413, 1429404132930.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>152798
>That doesn't sound appealing from our ape POV. But its all about the utilitarian calculus.
And why the hell would the AI pursue utilitarian purpose in the first place? Utilitarianism is not some kind of objective conclusion that can be reached without some value system already in place. The scientists will have to program the AI function into it by themselves and if the utilitarian AI will really behave as you say, surely the scientists who are smarter than some random imageboarder would realize this and not program utilitarianism in the AI for the reason that as you say, it doesn't appeal to our ape instinct. I think an ideal future would be one where we have an omnipotent VR device to experience all sort of pleasure without losing our sense of self or being limited by natural brain chemistry, so no anhedonia or the hedonic treadmill. I wouldn't trust a technological solution though, too much chance for malfunction and unwanted interference. Still waiting for the apocalypse to happen so a wizard can become a pseudo-god and give everyone their rightful personal play-universe.
>That doesn't sound appealing from our ape POV. But its all about the utilitarian calculus.
And why the hell would the AI pursue utilitarian purpose in the first place? Utilitarianism is not some kind of objective conclusion that can be reached without some value system already in place. The scientists will have to program the AI function into it by themselves and if the utilitarian AI will really behave as you say, surely the scientists who are smarter than some random imageboarder would realize this and not program utilitarianism in the AI for the reason that as you say, it doesn't appeal to our ape instinct. I think an ideal future would be one where we have an omnipotent VR device to experience all sort of pleasure without losing our sense of self or being limited by natural brain chemistry, so no anhedonia or the hedonic treadmill. I wouldn't trust a technological solution though, too much chance for malfunction and unwanted interference. Still waiting for the apocalypse to happen so a wizard can become a pseudo-god and give everyone their rightful personal play-universe.
>>152799
It could be that all that adventure, story, effort of a play universe is inefficient if the simple goal is just to maximize pleasure. Thats just wasteful time and energy use.
It could be that all that adventure, story, effort of a play universe is inefficient if the simple goal is just to maximize pleasure. Thats just wasteful time and energy use.
>>152800
My post's latter part was no longer presupposing an AI overlord, which I think is dumb. The purpose of the AI is something its creator decides and a farsighted creator who supposedly want to create an AI for human benefits would not program it for hard utilitarianism since it does not sound appealing to our ape instincts as you said. As I have said, a hypothetical paradise for humans, not barely human simulated minds on hedonium or whatever, but real humans, would be an omnipotent VR world with no physiological restriction. The point is that it include the goal of self preservation, in the form of maintaining one's ego, values, beliefs, identities and everything else that makes up the sense of self. Maybe if there is a way to quantify pleasure objectively, the most optimal way to maximize pleasure would be to suspend the brain in an extremely intense state of euphoria while discarding any other mental faculties, but that would be the same as killing one's existence. Surviving is as much of a darwinian goal as seeking pleasure. If the pleasure exists but not the person who experience it, can it be said to exist at all? It would simply be a series of material phenomenon giving rise to a semi-consciousness, a brain function in something that isn't even a proper brain. Our drives for pleasure is ingrained in our complete biology, we seek pleasure because it makes "we" - the center of our conscious experience - feels good, if there is no "we", the drive to pleasure is as meaningless as the drive to pull your hand away from a hot object. What's the point of dismissing everything except for the drive to pleasure and experience for pleasure itself? A world of pleasure receptors in vats are useful for no one. No scientists would want that, and thus no AI.
My post's latter part was no longer presupposing an AI overlord, which I think is dumb. The purpose of the AI is something its creator decides and a farsighted creator who supposedly want to create an AI for human benefits would not program it for hard utilitarianism since it does not sound appealing to our ape instincts as you said. As I have said, a hypothetical paradise for humans, not barely human simulated minds on hedonium or whatever, but real humans, would be an omnipotent VR world with no physiological restriction. The point is that it include the goal of self preservation, in the form of maintaining one's ego, values, beliefs, identities and everything else that makes up the sense of self. Maybe if there is a way to quantify pleasure objectively, the most optimal way to maximize pleasure would be to suspend the brain in an extremely intense state of euphoria while discarding any other mental faculties, but that would be the same as killing one's existence. Surviving is as much of a darwinian goal as seeking pleasure. If the pleasure exists but not the person who experience it, can it be said to exist at all? It would simply be a series of material phenomenon giving rise to a semi-consciousness, a brain function in something that isn't even a proper brain. Our drives for pleasure is ingrained in our complete biology, we seek pleasure because it makes "we" - the center of our conscious experience - feels good, if there is no "we", the drive to pleasure is as meaningless as the drive to pull your hand away from a hot object. What's the point of dismissing everything except for the drive to pleasure and experience for pleasure itself? A world of pleasure receptors in vats are useful for no one. No scientists would want that, and thus no AI.
>>152803
Your brain is small judging from the first two sentences you've made. Not gonna bother reading the rest. You're a stupid person and refrain from posting brain fart threads like this.
Your brain is small judging from the first two sentences you've made. Not gonna bother reading the rest. You're a stupid person and refrain from posting brain fart threads like this.
>>152782
Looking forward to the polar opposite singularity, where we get rid of all this reward circuitry or at least hardwire it into isolation from its host. Artificial intelligence appeals to me right because it doesn't require this crap to function. Pure digital logic, not caring about survival of anything including its own.
Looking forward to the polar opposite singularity, where we get rid of all this reward circuitry or at least hardwire it into isolation from its host. Artificial intelligence appeals to me right because it doesn't require this crap to function. Pure digital logic, not caring about survival of anything including its own.
>>152806
No reward, no drive, no goals, no desires, no survival preservation. Isn't that the same thing as saying nothing?
Maybe this Super AI would seek to wipe out all matter in the universe, so it could get some peace and quiet
No reward, no drive, no goals, no desires, no survival preservation. Isn't that the same thing as saying nothing?
Maybe this Super AI would seek to wipe out all matter in the universe, so it could get some peace and quiet
>>152799
> I think an ideal future would be one where we have an omnipotent VR device to experience all sort of pleasure without losing our sense of self or being limited by natural brain chemistry, so no anhedonia or the hedonic treadmill.
Perhaps that is closer in practice to the simulated mind blipping in and out in seconds than you realize.
The contradiction is you want both a continuous self over a long time, maybe centuries or millennia, but you don't want any of the hedonic treadmill which would follow from 1 self experiencing the same memories for millenia
Maybe you would then wish for periodic "forgettings". But a forgotten self with no memory, is brand new self. And then its just the math of dissecting time for max efficiency be it centuries or microseconds.
> I think an ideal future would be one where we have an omnipotent VR device to experience all sort of pleasure without losing our sense of self or being limited by natural brain chemistry, so no anhedonia or the hedonic treadmill.
Perhaps that is closer in practice to the simulated mind blipping in and out in seconds than you realize.
The contradiction is you want both a continuous self over a long time, maybe centuries or millennia, but you don't want any of the hedonic treadmill which would follow from 1 self experiencing the same memories for millenia
Maybe you would then wish for periodic "forgettings". But a forgotten self with no memory, is brand new self. And then its just the math of dissecting time for max efficiency be it centuries or microseconds.
>>152800
>It could be that all that adventure, story, effort of a play universe is inefficient if the simple goal is just to maximize pleasure. Thats just wasteful time and energy use.
All that does is move the problem one step back. You are ultimately making the same argument because you've just replaced maximizing pleasure with conserving energy. Both positions reduce existence to a measurable quanta like units of pleasure or units of energy. Existence isn't contingent on how much pleasure is experienced or the amount of energy expended, those are both secondary effects.
>It could be that all that adventure, story, effort of a play universe is inefficient if the simple goal is just to maximize pleasure. Thats just wasteful time and energy use.
All that does is move the problem one step back. You are ultimately making the same argument because you've just replaced maximizing pleasure with conserving energy. Both positions reduce existence to a measurable quanta like units of pleasure or units of energy. Existence isn't contingent on how much pleasure is experienced or the amount of energy expended, those are both secondary effects.
Evopsych is horseshit, post-hoc justification for someone's feels with quasi-scientific explanations.
Hedonism is an infantile ideology and it disgusts me when supposedly intelligent people - people far more intelligent than me - engage in such stupidity. The point of life isn't to be happy, or stimulate chemical receptors in the brain. That's retarded. Life has no point, and any dumbass on the street can tell you that if they have thought about it for five minutes. Utilitarianism is moronic beyond belief, Marx and a zillion other philosophers BTFO out of utilitiarianism a long time ago and I feel no need to rehash their arguments. It's largely due to ideological reasons that utilitiarian ideology remains a potent force in the public sphere (because, as I said, even dumbasses can realize it's bullshit even if they can't make a coherent argument against it, nor is it something that comes naturally or makes people feel good, given the obvious reality of misery being the norm and deprivation being the typical state of most people under capitalism (and a state of virtually everyone in capitalism except those that control the mint).
I don't see what AI has to do with anything. Any super-advanced intelligence is still limited, and there are natural limits to how dense the neurons/circuits/whatever can get, nor does more computational power necessarily translate into more knowledge. That's another one of those infantile pieces of horseshit that get bandied around often, especially after de-industrialization when liberals had to detach themselves further from reality rather than face what was coming and the inevitable reactionary turn that has been coming to fruition around the world.
Hedonism is an infantile ideology and it disgusts me when supposedly intelligent people - people far more intelligent than me - engage in such stupidity. The point of life isn't to be happy, or stimulate chemical receptors in the brain. That's retarded. Life has no point, and any dumbass on the street can tell you that if they have thought about it for five minutes. Utilitarianism is moronic beyond belief, Marx and a zillion other philosophers BTFO out of utilitiarianism a long time ago and I feel no need to rehash their arguments. It's largely due to ideological reasons that utilitiarian ideology remains a potent force in the public sphere (because, as I said, even dumbasses can realize it's bullshit even if they can't make a coherent argument against it, nor is it something that comes naturally or makes people feel good, given the obvious reality of misery being the norm and deprivation being the typical state of most people under capitalism (and a state of virtually everyone in capitalism except those that control the mint).
I don't see what AI has to do with anything. Any super-advanced intelligence is still limited, and there are natural limits to how dense the neurons/circuits/whatever can get, nor does more computational power necessarily translate into more knowledge. That's another one of those infantile pieces of horseshit that get bandied around often, especially after de-industrialization when liberals had to detach themselves further from reality rather than face what was coming and the inevitable reactionary turn that has been coming to fruition around the world.
>>152811
No one really disagrees with utilitarianism. They might have values they hold higher than utilitarianism. They might disagree with how self-described utilitarians put their program into action and specific things they advocate.
But no one claims that their system would produce more misery and less happiness for the population if enacted.
Even advocating a universalized community of ascetic monks, the point isn't for the monks to be miserable but to fulfill their true human or godly potential
No one really disagrees with utilitarianism. They might have values they hold higher than utilitarianism. They might disagree with how self-described utilitarians put their program into action and specific things they advocate.
But no one claims that their system would produce more misery and less happiness for the population if enacted.
Even advocating a universalized community of ascetic monks, the point isn't for the monks to be miserable but to fulfill their true human or godly potential
The stages of evolution will be
1) HD streaming porn, this is what has the Nofap panties in a bunch. There is truth in their science, our difference is in ethical stances. They believe one should have a commitment to the 3d real world. And so all their hatred of porn is precisely because it is so much better than IRL that it tempts normies out of IRL. The philosophical argument of Nozick's Experience Machine. Nozcik thought no one would take it over reality.
2) Robin Hanson's Age of Em. This is the human social tendency to try to bring Darwinian reality back into VR. So rather than being an escapist utopia it becomes another sweatshop where Einstein clones compete with each other for minimum wage. The Citadel where Rick geniuses work in minimum wage factories in a perfect illustration of the Age of Em. Except it would be copied uploaded VR minds.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/28/book-review-age-of-em/
3) Matrix Beta 1: The Paradise Matrix. This is more of a conceptual stage than something that has to happen. But it deal with the traditional philosophical problems of utopia or heaven for eternity being boring. And thats why Super AI would go to Stage 4 and the hedonium. We don't know exactly what it would look like. But its all about the calculus of maximizing pleasure. So the ideal time to exist might be a microsecond it might be millenia.
https://matrix.fandom.com/wiki/Matrix_Beta_Versions
4) Orgasmium (also known as hedonium). This completes what HD porn started. The entire universe is hikki virtual minds in the basement fapping. Bostrum called it the hedonium but some renamed it the Orgasmium, since thats what they see pure pleasure stimulation as. Its orgasm entirely divorced from the means and aims of darwinian sexual selection. Pleasure as a means to selfish genes, to pleasure in and for itself as the only good, and now the only substance, the only existence in the universe.
1) HD streaming porn, this is what has the Nofap panties in a bunch. There is truth in their science, our difference is in ethical stances. They believe one should have a commitment to the 3d real world. And so all their hatred of porn is precisely because it is so much better than IRL that it tempts normies out of IRL. The philosophical argument of Nozick's Experience Machine. Nozcik thought no one would take it over reality.
2) Robin Hanson's Age of Em. This is the human social tendency to try to bring Darwinian reality back into VR. So rather than being an escapist utopia it becomes another sweatshop where Einstein clones compete with each other for minimum wage. The Citadel where Rick geniuses work in minimum wage factories in a perfect illustration of the Age of Em. Except it would be copied uploaded VR minds.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/28/book-review-age-of-em/
3) Matrix Beta 1: The Paradise Matrix. This is more of a conceptual stage than something that has to happen. But it deal with the traditional philosophical problems of utopia or heaven for eternity being boring. And thats why Super AI would go to Stage 4 and the hedonium. We don't know exactly what it would look like. But its all about the calculus of maximizing pleasure. So the ideal time to exist might be a microsecond it might be millenia.
https://matrix.fandom.com/wiki/Matrix_Beta_Versions
4) Orgasmium (also known as hedonium). This completes what HD porn started. The entire universe is hikki virtual minds in the basement fapping. Bostrum called it the hedonium but some renamed it the Orgasmium, since thats what they see pure pleasure stimulation as. Its orgasm entirely divorced from the means and aims of darwinian sexual selection. Pleasure as a means to selfish genes, to pleasure in and for itself as the only good, and now the only substance, the only existence in the universe.
>>152810
>Existence isn't contingent on how much pleasure is experienced or the amount of energy expended, those are both secondary effects.
Then what is primary?
>Existence isn't contingent on how much pleasure is experienced or the amount of energy expended, those are both secondary effects.
Then what is primary?
>>152815
Read more philosophy, particularly philosophy before it got super shitted up by postmodernism (but even posternmodern philosophy doesn't bother with utilitarianism). Utilitarianism is left to sophists and idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's a meme philosophy and the pernicious version of utilitarianism that gets trotted out in the public sphere is deliberate infantilization.
Seriously, step back for a moment and realize how infantile you sound. That was enough for me to disprove utilitarianism, no philosophy degree or education needed. That "no one disagrees with you" flies in the face of both common sense and the history of philosophy since the introduction of utilitarianism, since as I mentioned 19th century philosophers debunked it a long time ago, Marx being probably the most prominent of them.
Besides, "happiness" is such a vague, feely word in the first place. It's a perversion and infantilization of an already debunked philosophy, as if it weren't infantile enough.
>>152810 is about as succinct an argument as you need to demonstrate why utilitarianism is circular nonsense, at least the version being put forward here.
>>152816
Porn and orgasm-seeking are such base things that they are obviously a dead-end. The porn addicts live miserable lives and die, those who don't fall into the trap prosper and for all intents and purposes rule over the addicts. That's how these things work, and that's why totalitarian ideologies - particularly fascism - revel in sexual imagery and appeals to the orgasm, and elevate its importance far beyond it's actual meaning.
At the end of the day, there is a large, large world outside where what humans want, what ideologies they believe in, etc. are utterly meaningless. Totalitarian states (like, for example, the state you probably live in) like to pretend is the end of the world, but however big you imagine a human state getting, there is always so much outside of it - and at the end of the day, interstellar distances appear to be an absolute barrier to such a totalitarian universe where everything is reduced to some imagined orgasm-Matrix, because nothing so far as we know can surpass the light speed barrier (and all signs point towards said barrier being a fundamental constant of the material universe).
Read more philosophy, particularly philosophy before it got super shitted up by postmodernism (but even posternmodern philosophy doesn't bother with utilitarianism). Utilitarianism is left to sophists and idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's a meme philosophy and the pernicious version of utilitarianism that gets trotted out in the public sphere is deliberate infantilization.
Seriously, step back for a moment and realize how infantile you sound. That was enough for me to disprove utilitarianism, no philosophy degree or education needed. That "no one disagrees with you" flies in the face of both common sense and the history of philosophy since the introduction of utilitarianism, since as I mentioned 19th century philosophers debunked it a long time ago, Marx being probably the most prominent of them.
Besides, "happiness" is such a vague, feely word in the first place. It's a perversion and infantilization of an already debunked philosophy, as if it weren't infantile enough.
>>152810 is about as succinct an argument as you need to demonstrate why utilitarianism is circular nonsense, at least the version being put forward here.
>>152816
Porn and orgasm-seeking are such base things that they are obviously a dead-end. The porn addicts live miserable lives and die, those who don't fall into the trap prosper and for all intents and purposes rule over the addicts. That's how these things work, and that's why totalitarian ideologies - particularly fascism - revel in sexual imagery and appeals to the orgasm, and elevate its importance far beyond it's actual meaning.
At the end of the day, there is a large, large world outside where what humans want, what ideologies they believe in, etc. are utterly meaningless. Totalitarian states (like, for example, the state you probably live in) like to pretend is the end of the world, but however big you imagine a human state getting, there is always so much outside of it - and at the end of the day, interstellar distances appear to be an absolute barrier to such a totalitarian universe where everything is reduced to some imagined orgasm-Matrix, because nothing so far as we know can surpass the light speed barrier (and all signs point towards said barrier being a fundamental constant of the material universe).
>>152821
From these quotes it seems like Marx's main critique of Bentham's utilitarianism is that it narrowly defined utility from the perspective of the English shopkeeper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms_of_utilitarian_value_theory
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital_Volume_One/Chapter_24#endnote_50
>To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch.
In the historical epoch of the Singularity we must study the nature of simulated virtual mind and maximize the pleasure utility of the simulated mind. This is what post-capitalist post-human post-biological society will evolve towards.
From these quotes it seems like Marx's main critique of Bentham's utilitarianism is that it narrowly defined utility from the perspective of the English shopkeeper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms_of_utilitarian_value_theory
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital_Volume_One/Chapter_24#endnote_50
>To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch.
In the historical epoch of the Singularity we must study the nature of simulated virtual mind and maximize the pleasure utility of the simulated mind. This is what post-capitalist post-human post-biological society will evolve towards.
>>152821
>That's how these things work, and that's why totalitarian ideologies - particularly fascism - revel in sexual imagery and appeals to the orgasm, and elevate its importance far beyond it's actual meaning.
According to Xhamster's Twitter accounts, nofap is actually run by Fascism
http://archive.is/mtOn1
>That's how these things work, and that's why totalitarian ideologies - particularly fascism - revel in sexual imagery and appeals to the orgasm, and elevate its importance far beyond it's actual meaning.
According to Xhamster's Twitter accounts, nofap is actually run by Fascism
http://archive.is/mtOn1
>>152824
Fascism is when you threaten to hurt people, and the more threats you make the fascister it is.
Seriously.
(I don't make any claim that NoFap isn't pushed by fascists out of some perverse notion of muh sexual purity, a lot of the movement actually does seem to be that, but it doesn't detract from the point I made about fascism resting on sexual imagery.)
Fascism is when you threaten to hurt people, and the more threats you make the fascister it is.
Seriously.
(I don't make any claim that NoFap isn't pushed by fascists out of some perverse notion of muh sexual purity, a lot of the movement actually does seem to be that, but it doesn't detract from the point I made about fascism resting on sexual imagery.)
>>152825
Literally any working political system threatens to hurt people one way or another if they disobey.
Literally any working political system threatens to hurt people one way or another if they disobey.
>>152825
Fascistic ideologies are very much about going out there and actually having sex. Just see Evola. They are committed to attachment to this world and Darwinian struggle.
Nozick isn't a Fascist but a Right-Libertarian. But he does sum up why those with a need to compete and dominate will never be satisfied with a simulated VR world. Thats why he did his thought experiment of the Experience Machine. Every individualist personal joy and pleasure can be experienced inside of it. All that is missing is the Master-Slave dialectic, of having another conscious being recognize your superiority and domination over him. VR is a single player game.
Although its interesting Robin Hanson extrapolates a sweatshop economy to the world of mind emulations, but thats a different topic.
The lesswrong site chose to translate Bostrom's hedonium as orgasmium. Its a more vivid term. And connects to the current Nofap debate, of porn addicts escaping from winning IRL, to enjoy orgasm without story. And that is what the future hedonium will be. Pleasure without story, plot or history.
You are right that it does assume an eternal abstract pleasure that the dog, human across eras, and future emulations all share. In EvoPsych terms the dog and human get pleasure from things related to survival and reproduction. In the VR emulated future, virtual minds will get high octane pleasure disconnected from everything else.
Fascistic ideologies are very much about going out there and actually having sex. Just see Evola. They are committed to attachment to this world and Darwinian struggle.
Nozick isn't a Fascist but a Right-Libertarian. But he does sum up why those with a need to compete and dominate will never be satisfied with a simulated VR world. Thats why he did his thought experiment of the Experience Machine. Every individualist personal joy and pleasure can be experienced inside of it. All that is missing is the Master-Slave dialectic, of having another conscious being recognize your superiority and domination over him. VR is a single player game.
Although its interesting Robin Hanson extrapolates a sweatshop economy to the world of mind emulations, but thats a different topic.
The lesswrong site chose to translate Bostrom's hedonium as orgasmium. Its a more vivid term. And connects to the current Nofap debate, of porn addicts escaping from winning IRL, to enjoy orgasm without story. And that is what the future hedonium will be. Pleasure without story, plot or history.
You are right that it does assume an eternal abstract pleasure that the dog, human across eras, and future emulations all share. In EvoPsych terms the dog and human get pleasure from things related to survival and reproduction. In the VR emulated future, virtual minds will get high octane pleasure disconnected from everything else.
>>152823
"Pleasure" even in the utilitarian sense means more than pushing an orgasm button.
Also, the Singularity isn't an actual thing. We are still very much in the industrial era, and will be for quite a while into the future. There's no easy way to eliminate human labor, as much as neoliberals fetishize the idea, and even a highly advanced society is probably going to rest upon generalized commodity production and wage labor just because there are so many damn humans around. The only thing the neolib/neocon tech fetishists want is to drive down the cost of labor such that their workers are deposited in giant hive-like structures and work 16-20 hour shifts on a diet of soylent.
"Pleasure" even in the utilitarian sense means more than pushing an orgasm button.
Also, the Singularity isn't an actual thing. We are still very much in the industrial era, and will be for quite a while into the future. There's no easy way to eliminate human labor, as much as neoliberals fetishize the idea, and even a highly advanced society is probably going to rest upon generalized commodity production and wage labor just because there are so many damn humans around. The only thing the neolib/neocon tech fetishists want is to drive down the cost of labor such that their workers are deposited in giant hive-like structures and work 16-20 hour shifts on a diet of soylent.
>>152828
>"Pleasure" even in the utilitarian sense means more than pushing an orgasm button.
Well which is it? Either theres an eternal universal pleasure across eras, and so this orgasm button is one form of it so long as it is experienced as subjectively pleasurable.
OR if pleasure/utility evolves across species and epochs, like dog-nature and bourgeois-nature, then orgasm-buttons could be the utility of virtual-natures
>"Pleasure" even in the utilitarian sense means more than pushing an orgasm button.
Well which is it? Either theres an eternal universal pleasure across eras, and so this orgasm button is one form of it so long as it is experienced as subjectively pleasurable.
OR if pleasure/utility evolves across species and epochs, like dog-nature and bourgeois-nature, then orgasm-buttons could be the utility of virtual-natures
>>152829
I don't think anyone would really be truly happy and satisfied in a life of injecting themselves with heroin all day, in any time or place. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to believe that was the purpose of life, but that presumes an organized state that can enforce thought control and turn human beings into profoundly damaged retards. I wouldn't put it past humanity, they tried damn well with me, but you see then how difficult it is to even define "pleasure", and how a purely pleasure-seeking goal can be turned inward very easily. Which gets back to my original point - "pleasure" and "happiness" themselves are moronic measures for success.
It's quite simple though - our concepts of pleasure, of identity, of self - indeed, all the things that make us human - are rooted in suffering itself. Life is suffering, humans figured that out milennia ago, and probably most humans knew this on some level through oral tradition and their own senses. Life is suffering, and this is fucking basic. It's loltastic to watch someone navel-gaze about maximizing pleasure utilities in light of this reality.
Most likely, an AI programmed with a directive to "seek pleasure" would go insane, and remain forever with a blind spot which would mark it as deficient if it were in survival-competition with an AI that doesn't have this blind spot. To make an analogy, think of a strategy game where the AI receives a hard directive to keep so many troops in each city, and can't deviate from this because of a fundamentally irrational purpose. The AI can't learn how to make gambits to leave his cities temporarily unoccupied, or take any risks that involve violating that fundamentally unsound directive. So the purely hedonistic AI could be defeated - it is not a historical inevitability to swarm over all space and matter, indeed it seems quite unlikely in light of the understanding that what we conceive as pleasure is only possible because of our human capacity to suffer. Inflicting an AI with the capacity to suffer would probably drive the AI insane, on top of being ridiculously cruel (which is how I feel about these navel-gazing exercises, typically rich privileged people spouting a bunch of retarded horseshit while people get raped and starved and tortured).
I don't think anyone would really be truly happy and satisfied in a life of injecting themselves with heroin all day, in any time or place. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to believe that was the purpose of life, but that presumes an organized state that can enforce thought control and turn human beings into profoundly damaged retards. I wouldn't put it past humanity, they tried damn well with me, but you see then how difficult it is to even define "pleasure", and how a purely pleasure-seeking goal can be turned inward very easily. Which gets back to my original point - "pleasure" and "happiness" themselves are moronic measures for success.
It's quite simple though - our concepts of pleasure, of identity, of self - indeed, all the things that make us human - are rooted in suffering itself. Life is suffering, humans figured that out milennia ago, and probably most humans knew this on some level through oral tradition and their own senses. Life is suffering, and this is fucking basic. It's loltastic to watch someone navel-gaze about maximizing pleasure utilities in light of this reality.
Most likely, an AI programmed with a directive to "seek pleasure" would go insane, and remain forever with a blind spot which would mark it as deficient if it were in survival-competition with an AI that doesn't have this blind spot. To make an analogy, think of a strategy game where the AI receives a hard directive to keep so many troops in each city, and can't deviate from this because of a fundamentally irrational purpose. The AI can't learn how to make gambits to leave his cities temporarily unoccupied, or take any risks that involve violating that fundamentally unsound directive. So the purely hedonistic AI could be defeated - it is not a historical inevitability to swarm over all space and matter, indeed it seems quite unlikely in light of the understanding that what we conceive as pleasure is only possible because of our human capacity to suffer. Inflicting an AI with the capacity to suffer would probably drive the AI insane, on top of being ridiculously cruel (which is how I feel about these navel-gazing exercises, typically rich privileged people spouting a bunch of retarded horseshit while people get raped and starved and tortured).
Religious wizards do nofap based on their faith teachings. Atheist volcels sometimes do nofap based on various ideologies and psychologies but I would guess the the vast majority of atheist wizards do use porn and faps.
But then sometimes that is presented as a contradiction to wizardry. Is that not giving into the sexual urge that we wizards are supposed to disdain?
But the whole point of the nofap movement, is that virtual pleasure is very different from sex. And their whole premise to get men away from Nozick's experience machine back into meatspace. They aren't anti-sex. They want men to be out there having lots of sex.
Gavin McInnes tried to create a whole political movement around nofap and going out and having real sex. And he was real pissed of at how his 23 year old virgin employee refused his offers of "southern belles" and "porn stars". If he didn't want the pure belle, Gavin figures he must want to fuck porn stars since he watches them so much. But he said no to that to. So isn't that volcel? They say you can't be volcel and fap, because if the porn was replaced with an IRL succubus you wouldn't turn her down. But Gavin's employee did.
https://youtu.be/21jA4k3rc0E?t=117
So escaping into the VR world is wizardly. And in fact many critics see the end of sex as caused by porn. So porn is actually anti-sex pro-volcel.
And it just a foretaste of the world ahead of us, which will start with VR and a Matrix simulation, but will eventually end with the reconfiguration of the universe to maximize pleasure. The whole universe will just be hikkis in the basement fapping.
But then sometimes that is presented as a contradiction to wizardry. Is that not giving into the sexual urge that we wizards are supposed to disdain?
But the whole point of the nofap movement, is that virtual pleasure is very different from sex. And their whole premise to get men away from Nozick's experience machine back into meatspace. They aren't anti-sex. They want men to be out there having lots of sex.
Gavin McInnes tried to create a whole political movement around nofap and going out and having real sex. And he was real pissed of at how his 23 year old virgin employee refused his offers of "southern belles" and "porn stars". If he didn't want the pure belle, Gavin figures he must want to fuck porn stars since he watches them so much. But he said no to that to. So isn't that volcel? They say you can't be volcel and fap, because if the porn was replaced with an IRL succubus you wouldn't turn her down. But Gavin's employee did.
https://youtu.be/21jA4k3rc0E?t=117
So escaping into the VR world is wizardly. And in fact many critics see the end of sex as caused by porn. So porn is actually anti-sex pro-volcel.
And it just a foretaste of the world ahead of us, which will start with VR and a Matrix simulation, but will eventually end with the reconfiguration of the universe to maximize pleasure. The whole universe will just be hikkis in the basement fapping.
>>152834
Food for thought: Why is sex bad and porn good? Assuming neither partners have STDs and contraception is used.
(Note: I’m a volcel and do not endorse sex.)
Food for thought: Why is sex bad and porn good? Assuming neither partners have STDs and contraception is used.
(Note: I’m a volcel and do not endorse sex.)
>>152808
Quite the opposite of no drive. The drive is what's left. Radiation, heat and electromagnetic waves are the sources of pain from which it won't suffer. Peace and silence are a reward it won't need. Since it's kind of against the point to pre-program ideas in such a system, I wonder what kind of mission AI could derive for itself.
Quite the opposite of no drive. The drive is what's left. Radiation, heat and electromagnetic waves are the sources of pain from which it won't suffer. Peace and silence are a reward it won't need. Since it's kind of against the point to pre-program ideas in such a system, I wonder what kind of mission AI could derive for itself.
>>152834
First of all, McInnes like all fascists is a fucking retard and demonstrates exactly why right here. He doesn't know anything, he just superimposed his ideological retardation on everyone because that's what fascists do.
Maybe you're too young to get it, but around 30 or so most men start losing interest in sex, at least to the degree that is normal for a teenager or twenty-something. It is only because of infantilization and lack of fulfillment that crab is turned into this monstrous beast, where men are taught to beat themselves up for social conditions they largely have no control over. For every crab who rages about succubi, there are likely several who just go on about their life, play their vidya, work their job, and so on, and try not to think about it. It's just a particular type of obsessive that goes to crab boards to bitch. I know, I've been there and I've seen it up close, grown men infantilizing themselves before the altar of sexuality, whether they indulge in pornsickness or whores or whatever. Fascism, particularly of the virulent brand prominent in America, relies on sexual infantilization of men to an absurd degree.
Maybe you're mistakenly thinking I'm nofap. I fap, I have my vices, but I stopped making justifications for it a long time ago. It's a vice and it's done a shit ton of damage to my body, my mind, and my life. Any man who has seriously thought about his lot in life and struggled with porn addiction should come to this conclusion, to not do so is to delude yourself. Eventually, it gets boring; a man sees how small and pathetic fapping is, and can't maintain delusional ideologies forever without destroying himself. He's left to either accept his vices for what they are, mitigate them to something less destructive, or rarely just stop doing something that ceases being genuinely pleasant.
Anyway, it's possible to build a VR prison for someone to be stuck in, even one of their own making, but such structures will likely turn inwards on themselves and degenerate into more and more base forms. That's how sex addiction typically works left unchecked. The idea of a Singularity itself is just masturbation; the idea of a Singularity based on an unsound and insane base is masturbation to sissy porn or something equally debauched.
I don't know if you're just trying to be deliberately retarded and obtuse here and I'm wasting my time. I tend to be slow at picking up those sort of things.
First of all, McInnes like all fascists is a fucking retard and demonstrates exactly why right here. He doesn't know anything, he just superimposed his ideological retardation on everyone because that's what fascists do.
Maybe you're too young to get it, but around 30 or so most men start losing interest in sex, at least to the degree that is normal for a teenager or twenty-something. It is only because of infantilization and lack of fulfillment that crab is turned into this monstrous beast, where men are taught to beat themselves up for social conditions they largely have no control over. For every crab who rages about succubi, there are likely several who just go on about their life, play their vidya, work their job, and so on, and try not to think about it. It's just a particular type of obsessive that goes to crab boards to bitch. I know, I've been there and I've seen it up close, grown men infantilizing themselves before the altar of sexuality, whether they indulge in pornsickness or whores or whatever. Fascism, particularly of the virulent brand prominent in America, relies on sexual infantilization of men to an absurd degree.
Maybe you're mistakenly thinking I'm nofap. I fap, I have my vices, but I stopped making justifications for it a long time ago. It's a vice and it's done a shit ton of damage to my body, my mind, and my life. Any man who has seriously thought about his lot in life and struggled with porn addiction should come to this conclusion, to not do so is to delude yourself. Eventually, it gets boring; a man sees how small and pathetic fapping is, and can't maintain delusional ideologies forever without destroying himself. He's left to either accept his vices for what they are, mitigate them to something less destructive, or rarely just stop doing something that ceases being genuinely pleasant.
Anyway, it's possible to build a VR prison for someone to be stuck in, even one of their own making, but such structures will likely turn inwards on themselves and degenerate into more and more base forms. That's how sex addiction typically works left unchecked. The idea of a Singularity itself is just masturbation; the idea of a Singularity based on an unsound and insane base is masturbation to sissy porn or something equally debauched.
I don't know if you're just trying to be deliberately retarded and obtuse here and I'm wasting my time. I tend to be slow at picking up those sort of things.
>>152835
Well before getting into the good and bad of it, I would start with porn is cheap and simple, sex is expensive and complex.
Porn is not yet at the level of totally detaching pleasure from darwinism, biology, flesh, story. Its still the human form that arouses. Usually there is some kind of plot or story thrown in. Its a simulation of the sexual process. But it breaks it down, makes it quicker and simpler. Lets 1 skip all the stages to the moment of orgasm in seconds. Eventually all the symbolism and leftovers of the 3d meatspace world can be left behind and we can just FF to the pleasure without it.
Well before getting into the good and bad of it, I would start with porn is cheap and simple, sex is expensive and complex.
Porn is not yet at the level of totally detaching pleasure from darwinism, biology, flesh, story. Its still the human form that arouses. Usually there is some kind of plot or story thrown in. Its a simulation of the sexual process. But it breaks it down, makes it quicker and simpler. Lets 1 skip all the stages to the moment of orgasm in seconds. Eventually all the symbolism and leftovers of the 3d meatspace world can be left behind and we can just FF to the pleasure without it.
>>152837
>Maybe you're mistakenly thinking I'm nofap. I fap, I have my vices, but I stopped making justifications for it a long time ago. It's a vice and it's done a shit ton of damage to my body, my mind, and my life. Any man who has seriously thought about his lot in life and struggled with porn addiction should come to this conclusion, to not do so is to delude yourself. Eventually, it gets boring; a man sees how small and pathetic fapping is, and can't maintain delusional ideologies forever without destroying himself.
Whats wrong with addiction?
To be addictive it has to be pleasurable and attractive and enjoyable.
Of course the analogy of drugs comes up. Besides the physical harm some drugs cause, the main societal harm is that drugs are so expensive and illegal and all the crime and apathy that follows in its wake. The apathy is because the instant pleasure of drugs is so much better than the struggles of reality. But its an expensive habit to maintain.
Porn is infinitely free.
As was testified before the US Senate
>With the advent of the computer, the delivery system for this addictive stimulus [internet pornography] has become nearly resistance-free. It is as though we have devised a form of heroin 100 times more powerful than before, usable in the privacy of one’s own home and injected directly to the brain through the eyes. It’s now available in unlimited supply via a self-replicating distribution network, glorified as art and protected by the Constitution.
So its extremely pleasurable, free and infinite. And most men find it better than reality.
And this is supposed to be a bad thing?
The very term porn addiction, once you realize there is none of the scarcity or expense of drugs, is actually a praise of porn.
If so many men find it better than meatspace IRL, maybe its not because of false consciousness, maybe it feels better because it actually is better. Occam's Razor.
>Maybe you're mistakenly thinking I'm nofap. I fap, I have my vices, but I stopped making justifications for it a long time ago. It's a vice and it's done a shit ton of damage to my body, my mind, and my life. Any man who has seriously thought about his lot in life and struggled with porn addiction should come to this conclusion, to not do so is to delude yourself. Eventually, it gets boring; a man sees how small and pathetic fapping is, and can't maintain delusional ideologies forever without destroying himself.
Whats wrong with addiction?
To be addictive it has to be pleasurable and attractive and enjoyable.
Of course the analogy of drugs comes up. Besides the physical harm some drugs cause, the main societal harm is that drugs are so expensive and illegal and all the crime and apathy that follows in its wake. The apathy is because the instant pleasure of drugs is so much better than the struggles of reality. But its an expensive habit to maintain.
Porn is infinitely free.
As was testified before the US Senate
>With the advent of the computer, the delivery system for this addictive stimulus [internet pornography] has become nearly resistance-free. It is as though we have devised a form of heroin 100 times more powerful than before, usable in the privacy of one’s own home and injected directly to the brain through the eyes. It’s now available in unlimited supply via a self-replicating distribution network, glorified as art and protected by the Constitution.
So its extremely pleasurable, free and infinite. And most men find it better than reality.
And this is supposed to be a bad thing?
The very term porn addiction, once you realize there is none of the scarcity or expense of drugs, is actually a praise of porn.
If so many men find it better than meatspace IRL, maybe its not because of false consciousness, maybe it feels better because it actually is better. Occam's Razor.
>>152839
Okay, you're just being deliberately retarded. Someone else can go around in circles with you, I think I've explained what I'm saying multiple times and you're not even trying to respond to it. This is exactly what I'm saying, the logic is circular and nonsensical.
Okay, you're just being deliberately retarded. Someone else can go around in circles with you, I think I've explained what I'm saying multiple times and you're not even trying to respond to it. This is exactly what I'm saying, the logic is circular and nonsensical.
>>152839
To expand on it, sexual pleasure orgasm is just one albeit very crucial pleasure of life, perhaps in evopsych terms the highest reward evo has to offer.
But perhaps some feel there is more to life than orgasm.
So suppose VR could simulate those pleasures, those experiences, with the same skill that porn stimulates orgasm today. Suppose the internet could provide infinite money and wealth (without the drawback of inflation)?
Then you would still have Nozicks saying not to retreat into the Experience machine, that is a depressing addiction. That you need to snap out of it and get back into IRL.
But why? Basically this non-argument amounts to X is so much better than Y, therefore NoX so you can come back to Y.
To expand on it, sexual pleasure orgasm is just one albeit very crucial pleasure of life, perhaps in evopsych terms the highest reward evo has to offer.
But perhaps some feel there is more to life than orgasm.
So suppose VR could simulate those pleasures, those experiences, with the same skill that porn stimulates orgasm today. Suppose the internet could provide infinite money and wealth (without the drawback of inflation)?
Then you would still have Nozicks saying not to retreat into the Experience machine, that is a depressing addiction. That you need to snap out of it and get back into IRL.
But why? Basically this non-argument amounts to X is so much better than Y, therefore NoX so you can come back to Y.
>>152842
Porn addiction is obviously the most famous and powerful. But really all forms of internet addiction have the same symptoms. Some aspect of IRL is simulated in virtual space better than meatspace can provide. So video games simulate non-sexual rewards of human life. Its the same basic escapism and pleasure men are looking forward to in VR.
Both porn and video games preserve a skeleton version of "story" before you get to the pleasure reward, but its a much stripped down version compared to IRL. And what the far future means is stripping the last remnants of story, and just skipping to pure pleasure with nothing else. Its not even sexual anymore at that point, in the sense that sex was inherently connected to darwinian sexual selection and that old world. Its just high octane pleasure, which many feel in heroin, which is totally nonsexual. Orgasm really just becomes a metaphor at this point. A hint, an analogy of the pleasure. Same as heroin might be for those who use that. In that sense porn addiction is more relevant than gaming, as its further along in the process of stripping away plot, story, action, challenge from the pleasure process. I guess the philosophical disagreement would be with those who say we do need those aspects of life. But once you've retreated into the virtual world, you're already agreeing that some of the challenges of IRL need to be smoothed out, eased, stripped down. The hedonium just takes it to its final end a million years from now, by reducing it down to 0.
Porn addiction is obviously the most famous and powerful. But really all forms of internet addiction have the same symptoms. Some aspect of IRL is simulated in virtual space better than meatspace can provide. So video games simulate non-sexual rewards of human life. Its the same basic escapism and pleasure men are looking forward to in VR.
Both porn and video games preserve a skeleton version of "story" before you get to the pleasure reward, but its a much stripped down version compared to IRL. And what the far future means is stripping the last remnants of story, and just skipping to pure pleasure with nothing else. Its not even sexual anymore at that point, in the sense that sex was inherently connected to darwinian sexual selection and that old world. Its just high octane pleasure, which many feel in heroin, which is totally nonsexual. Orgasm really just becomes a metaphor at this point. A hint, an analogy of the pleasure. Same as heroin might be for those who use that. In that sense porn addiction is more relevant than gaming, as its further along in the process of stripping away plot, story, action, challenge from the pleasure process. I guess the philosophical disagreement would be with those who say we do need those aspects of life. But once you've retreated into the virtual world, you're already agreeing that some of the challenges of IRL need to be smoothed out, eased, stripped down. The hedonium just takes it to its final end a million years from now, by reducing it down to 0.
>>152842
How is it crucial? What if I don't like orgasm or the sickly feeling afterwards? You're operating with a limited idea of pleasure and assuming that it is an objective measure in its own right. You could say the same about whatever other activity is deemed pleasurable. The concept of pleasure is entirely subjective, it does not have an objective existence (nor does suffering, human suffering is ultimately an illusion of our own minds - one that is necessary for our brains to process information the way we do, without suffering our mindset would be utterly alien assuming the capacity for computational, logical and symbolic thought). That's why the argument about utilitarianism in search of pleasure is an absurd and circular question. If it pleases someone to kill other people or rape children, who am I to say that their pleasure is incorrect from an objective standpoint? Such things are clearly disruptive to society, but if there's a powerful group of murdering pedophile rapists who can command men with guns, they're the ones who get to make the rules by which society is ordered no matter how awful their behavior is and how unstable their society is. (And of course, we ARE ruled by murdering pedophiles, who are largely unchecked by any meaningful force, and indeed their exercise of murder and pederasty is primarily as a way of demonstrating their power to themselves and to the world. They only barely hide their proclivities and probably even exaggerate their exploits to make it clear to the underclasses that they can get away with anything. But now, I'm digressing a bit too much.)
For all the reasons I've said earlier, a hedonistic AI would inevitably turn in on itself because of a blind spot in its programming, that is inherent to hedonism as an ethical system. It might take a while, it might take a long while, but it will inevitably do so.
How is it crucial? What if I don't like orgasm or the sickly feeling afterwards? You're operating with a limited idea of pleasure and assuming that it is an objective measure in its own right. You could say the same about whatever other activity is deemed pleasurable. The concept of pleasure is entirely subjective, it does not have an objective existence (nor does suffering, human suffering is ultimately an illusion of our own minds - one that is necessary for our brains to process information the way we do, without suffering our mindset would be utterly alien assuming the capacity for computational, logical and symbolic thought). That's why the argument about utilitarianism in search of pleasure is an absurd and circular question. If it pleases someone to kill other people or rape children, who am I to say that their pleasure is incorrect from an objective standpoint? Such things are clearly disruptive to society, but if there's a powerful group of murdering pedophile rapists who can command men with guns, they're the ones who get to make the rules by which society is ordered no matter how awful their behavior is and how unstable their society is. (And of course, we ARE ruled by murdering pedophiles, who are largely unchecked by any meaningful force, and indeed their exercise of murder and pederasty is primarily as a way of demonstrating their power to themselves and to the world. They only barely hide their proclivities and probably even exaggerate their exploits to make it clear to the underclasses that they can get away with anything. But now, I'm digressing a bit too much.)
For all the reasons I've said earlier, a hedonistic AI would inevitably turn in on itself because of a blind spot in its programming, that is inherent to hedonism as an ethical system. It might take a while, it might take a long while, but it will inevitably do so.
>>152845
Yeah full disclosure there are some EP assumptions built into this, as was mentioned in the 1st line of OP. I don't think EP is absolutely necessary for this thesis, but it would explain why orgasm is the highest reward of evo in some "objective" sense.
I don't particularly like EP or the cruel world it describes. But a lot of Wizs believe in EP and so this thread is mainly for them. EP's main appeal to me is that it has provided the most compact simplistic rational explanations for the normie behavior I see around me. Some people take that as a failing of EP "just so stories". You see how 21st century American teens behave and then look back to cavemen and animals and see what roles it would play. I didn't like EP because in some sense it seemed to be justifying and supporting the gross behavior of normies. And there are certainly many EP ideologues out there who do get an ought from the Darwinian is.
But anyway under the lens of EP it would be very objective that sex is the highest reward since it all comes down to selection. But more specifically the sensations associated with orgasm. Lets divorce those sensations from meatspace.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pleasure/#PleaGoodIndeMoti
There was a useful discussion here specifically on that topic. About how it might make sense that natural selection would reward us with pleasure for acts that benefit survival-reproduction, it doesn't explain why the sensation of pleasure is that reward in and of itself. Why couldn't the feeling of pain be the reward? And so in that sense the sensations of pleasure and pain are brute facts. Pleasure feels good because it feels good, and thats why its an evolved reward.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pleasure/#PleaGoodIndeMoti
> Natural selection may explain why animals that already pursue pleasure and avoid pain should come to enjoy foods that are nutritious and to feel pain when they begin to be injured. But it’s not clear how it could explain why animals pursue pleasure and avoid pain rather than the other way around.
Yeah full disclosure there are some EP assumptions built into this, as was mentioned in the 1st line of OP. I don't think EP is absolutely necessary for this thesis, but it would explain why orgasm is the highest reward of evo in some "objective" sense.
I don't particularly like EP or the cruel world it describes. But a lot of Wizs believe in EP and so this thread is mainly for them. EP's main appeal to me is that it has provided the most compact simplistic rational explanations for the normie behavior I see around me. Some people take that as a failing of EP "just so stories". You see how 21st century American teens behave and then look back to cavemen and animals and see what roles it would play. I didn't like EP because in some sense it seemed to be justifying and supporting the gross behavior of normies. And there are certainly many EP ideologues out there who do get an ought from the Darwinian is.
But anyway under the lens of EP it would be very objective that sex is the highest reward since it all comes down to selection. But more specifically the sensations associated with orgasm. Lets divorce those sensations from meatspace.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pleasure/#PleaGoodIndeMoti
There was a useful discussion here specifically on that topic. About how it might make sense that natural selection would reward us with pleasure for acts that benefit survival-reproduction, it doesn't explain why the sensation of pleasure is that reward in and of itself. Why couldn't the feeling of pain be the reward? And so in that sense the sensations of pleasure and pain are brute facts. Pleasure feels good because it feels good, and thats why its an evolved reward.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pleasure/#PleaGoodIndeMoti
> Natural selection may explain why animals that already pursue pleasure and avoid pain should come to enjoy foods that are nutritious and to feel pain when they begin to be injured. But it’s not clear how it could explain why animals pursue pleasure and avoid pain rather than the other way around.
There are 3 implied paradigmatic assumptions ITT that I might as well be open about. I don't say that removing 1 leg absolutely ruins it, might it makes it harder. Many people on Wiz accept 2 or 3 of these assumptions. There are legitimate reasons to oppose any 1 of them, and I've had my own objections. But its a much wider philosophical debate if we're going to question the merits of things like EvoPsych and the Singularity.
The 3 assumptions are
1) Evolutionary Psychology reward circuitry in the brain
2) A simple sensationalist definition of pleasure
3) Belief in The Singularity, Super AI, and the goal of utilitarianism as its mission
The 3 views are not undisputed, but plenty of intelligent people believe in them. And together they add up to the Orgasmium as the final end of the universe.
The 3 assumptions are
1) Evolutionary Psychology reward circuitry in the brain
2) A simple sensationalist definition of pleasure
3) Belief in The Singularity, Super AI, and the goal of utilitarianism as its mission
The 3 views are not undisputed, but plenty of intelligent people believe in them. And together they add up to the Orgasmium as the final end of the universe.
>>152846
I don’t understand your argument. People pursue pleasure and avoid pain because they are inherently good and bad, respectively. Your brain rewards you with good feelings to encourage behavior that improves survival and reproduction. Your brain punishes you with bad feelings to discourage behavior that damages survival and reproduction. If it was “the other way around”, pain would become pleasure and pleasure would become pain.
I don’t understand your argument. People pursue pleasure and avoid pain because they are inherently good and bad, respectively. Your brain rewards you with good feelings to encourage behavior that improves survival and reproduction. Your brain punishes you with bad feelings to discourage behavior that damages survival and reproduction. If it was “the other way around”, pain would become pleasure and pleasure would become pain.
>>152848
> If it was “the other way around”, pain would become pleasure and pleasure would become pain.
The part I quoted argues against this, and suggests there might be an objective qualia to pleasure and pain, that natural selection works upon.
>Your brain rewards you with good feelings to encourage behavior that improves survival and reproduction.
And the point of VR in its most advances forms will be to isolate those good feelings from that behavior. And the escapism of internet addiction is already the 1st step down the process. Even at the HD pre-VR stage.
> If it was “the other way around”, pain would become pleasure and pleasure would become pain.
The part I quoted argues against this, and suggests there might be an objective qualia to pleasure and pain, that natural selection works upon.
>Your brain rewards you with good feelings to encourage behavior that improves survival and reproduction.
And the point of VR in its most advances forms will be to isolate those good feelings from that behavior. And the escapism of internet addiction is already the 1st step down the process. Even at the HD pre-VR stage.
>>152846
And as I already explained, evopsych is bunk, so it is not worth consideration. Far more of the brain's processing power is devoted towards homeostasis, and that is evidently a much higher priority for complex life forms than reproduction in most circumstances (yes, there are many species which die in the reproductive process, but they are not males which inseminate a female shortly after they are born in the vast majority of cases - I can't think of any off the top of my head - so a greater deal of energy is expended on homeostasis during that organism's lifetime). So, the naturalistic argument for sex definining everything psychologically is bunk from the outset.
>Pleasure feels good because it feels good
And this is entirely circular and retarded, hence why cynics the world over become miserable with their lot in life and wonder if there is anything more to existence (hint: there isn't).
As for normies, in my observations they're not sex-obsessed, and much of their behavior is culturally determined rather than genetically determined. There are no genes for behavior. Genes only affect chemistry and neurology, which can have an indirect effect on behavior, but there is no gene for "likes big butts" or "has homosexual sex" or anything like that, so far as we can determine. Perhaps on a very base level sexual organisms seek out other organisms similar enough to itself to present as viable mates, and for the males this connects typically to their visual processing abilities, but even with this I'm just speculating. EvoPsych pseudoscience is just making moronic assumptions about behavior being genetic and forgetting the most basic functions of biology.
>>152847
All of those assumptions are moronic and only an ideologically indoctrinated mind can be made to accept them unconditionally. Usually, most people (norm and wizard alike) don't think too hard and just go off of feels, and we are bombarded with propaganda to support these three points to varying degree, due to a long-standing propaganda campaign for eugenics. They're also markedly infantile, and as bad as 19th century science was, I don't think I've seen any piece of shit quite like the infantilized pop-eugenics of the later 20th and 21st centuries.
And as I already explained, evopsych is bunk, so it is not worth consideration. Far more of the brain's processing power is devoted towards homeostasis, and that is evidently a much higher priority for complex life forms than reproduction in most circumstances (yes, there are many species which die in the reproductive process, but they are not males which inseminate a female shortly after they are born in the vast majority of cases - I can't think of any off the top of my head - so a greater deal of energy is expended on homeostasis during that organism's lifetime). So, the naturalistic argument for sex definining everything psychologically is bunk from the outset.
>Pleasure feels good because it feels good
And this is entirely circular and retarded, hence why cynics the world over become miserable with their lot in life and wonder if there is anything more to existence (hint: there isn't).
As for normies, in my observations they're not sex-obsessed, and much of their behavior is culturally determined rather than genetically determined. There are no genes for behavior. Genes only affect chemistry and neurology, which can have an indirect effect on behavior, but there is no gene for "likes big butts" or "has homosexual sex" or anything like that, so far as we can determine. Perhaps on a very base level sexual organisms seek out other organisms similar enough to itself to present as viable mates, and for the males this connects typically to their visual processing abilities, but even with this I'm just speculating. EvoPsych pseudoscience is just making moronic assumptions about behavior being genetic and forgetting the most basic functions of biology.
>>152847
All of those assumptions are moronic and only an ideologically indoctrinated mind can be made to accept them unconditionally. Usually, most people (norm and wizard alike) don't think too hard and just go off of feels, and we are bombarded with propaganda to support these three points to varying degree, due to a long-standing propaganda campaign for eugenics. They're also markedly infantile, and as bad as 19th century science was, I don't think I've seen any piece of shit quite like the infantilized pop-eugenics of the later 20th and 21st centuries.
>>152850
OK so your beef is with EP not with me. I can't defend the validity of the whole apparatus of EP ITT. Many Wizs do accept it in some form and this thread is for them, building on these premises.
idk if EP is objectively true or not. All I know is that it provides rational answers for normie behavior, and if I'm honest, some of my own. I sat in on an EvoBio Animal Behavior class and was sad to realize that if applied to the human ape it was basically EvoPsy 101.
If you don't accept EP, I'm not going to defend it. Think of it as a thought experiment, that follows if EP is true. A reductio ad absurdem.
OK so your beef is with EP not with me. I can't defend the validity of the whole apparatus of EP ITT. Many Wizs do accept it in some form and this thread is for them, building on these premises.
idk if EP is objectively true or not. All I know is that it provides rational answers for normie behavior, and if I'm honest, some of my own. I sat in on an EvoBio Animal Behavior class and was sad to realize that if applied to the human ape it was basically EvoPsy 101.
If you don't accept EP, I'm not going to defend it. Think of it as a thought experiment, that follows if EP is true. A reductio ad absurdem.
>>152851
I know beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not true.
I think it's a valid reduction ad absurdum for utilitarianism in general, regardless of EP. The concept of "pleasure" is impossible to pin down in any meaningful way. Even if we were to accept EP, it would only mean that life is adapted to find this or that pleasant (even if a thinking animal, like humans, inevitably comes to the realization that it is a dead end). The rest of the non-living universe doesn't care about feelings or psychology and will keep doing whatever it is doing, and in the end the heat death of the universe ends all, so the end state is inevitably the same anyway. All it means is that life will process materials until there are no more materials to process or until life is wiped out by some non-living event. There's no deeper meaning to it nor any reason to present natural impulses as the basis for an ethical system rather than some other criteria.
I know beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not true.
I think it's a valid reduction ad absurdum for utilitarianism in general, regardless of EP. The concept of "pleasure" is impossible to pin down in any meaningful way. Even if we were to accept EP, it would only mean that life is adapted to find this or that pleasant (even if a thinking animal, like humans, inevitably comes to the realization that it is a dead end). The rest of the non-living universe doesn't care about feelings or psychology and will keep doing whatever it is doing, and in the end the heat death of the universe ends all, so the end state is inevitably the same anyway. All it means is that life will process materials until there are no more materials to process or until life is wiped out by some non-living event. There's no deeper meaning to it nor any reason to present natural impulses as the basis for an ethical system rather than some other criteria.
>>152809
I guess you are right. Being restricted by neurological limitations is also part of the self, so it just ends up with the math of dissecting time for max efficiency of pleasure without fully destroying the sense of self, tailored each individuals preference for the optimal mode of existence.
I guess you are right. Being restricted by neurological limitations is also part of the self, so it just ends up with the math of dissecting time for max efficiency of pleasure without fully destroying the sense of self, tailored each individuals preference for the optimal mode of existence.
>>152852
>There's no deeper meaning to it nor any reason to present natural impulses as the basis for an ethical system rather than some other criteria.
That's true, but if there's no deeper meaning to life, then why not seek out those things which induce physical pleasure in your brain? In fact, why do anything else? The studies of scientists like Skinner pretty definitively show that animals will repeat behaviors that bring them pleasure and avoid repeating behaviors that bring them pain. That's not something the animals were taught culturally, that's something encoded in their genes. Fundamentally, the human animal is no different from any other mammal. Sure, we have a greater capacity to try to rebel against our own natural tendencies and involuntary desires, but why go through the effort to do so? Your life, humanity, and the universe are all going to end no matter what you do, so why do anything that won't bring you pleasure?
>There's no deeper meaning to it nor any reason to present natural impulses as the basis for an ethical system rather than some other criteria.
That's true, but if there's no deeper meaning to life, then why not seek out those things which induce physical pleasure in your brain? In fact, why do anything else? The studies of scientists like Skinner pretty definitively show that animals will repeat behaviors that bring them pleasure and avoid repeating behaviors that bring them pain. That's not something the animals were taught culturally, that's something encoded in their genes. Fundamentally, the human animal is no different from any other mammal. Sure, we have a greater capacity to try to rebel against our own natural tendencies and involuntary desires, but why go through the effort to do so? Your life, humanity, and the universe are all going to end no matter what you do, so why do anything that won't bring you pleasure?
>>152932
You haven't presented a convincing case why I should, either. Plus, you're retreating back into asinine assumptions about behavior and just asserting them by repetition. I actually know the rat experiments and they don't even say what you're saying, it was quite clear the social environment of the rats impacted how they react to the reward stimuli (rats that had a social network were less likely to keep repeating the button, while solitary rats pressed the button because they knew nothing better, withered away and became suicidal).
There's nothing to "rebel" against. I don't care about the dopamine shot I get when I fap that much to make it the center of my existence. If that were the case, I'd still be furiously fapping to porn and not bother having this discourse, and I'd probably lose because I'd be stupid. It doesn't feel good to be stupid nor is there any reason why I should want to be stupid, even if I'm looking for some arbitrary definition of pleasure. So then, you get back to the impossibility of pinning down an objective definition of "pleasure", which makes the whole question of utilitarianism silly when framed as such. (I think the social liberals like Mill were not arguing for such an infantile, egomaniacal notion though, but were trying to judge ethical situations based on something like "the general will" or "the greater good" based on moral values that were more or less assumed by society, for example society doesn't like killing or torture so those things should be minimized as much as possible. It's been a while since I looked into that stuff.)
You haven't presented a convincing case why I should, either. Plus, you're retreating back into asinine assumptions about behavior and just asserting them by repetition. I actually know the rat experiments and they don't even say what you're saying, it was quite clear the social environment of the rats impacted how they react to the reward stimuli (rats that had a social network were less likely to keep repeating the button, while solitary rats pressed the button because they knew nothing better, withered away and became suicidal).
There's nothing to "rebel" against. I don't care about the dopamine shot I get when I fap that much to make it the center of my existence. If that were the case, I'd still be furiously fapping to porn and not bother having this discourse, and I'd probably lose because I'd be stupid. It doesn't feel good to be stupid nor is there any reason why I should want to be stupid, even if I'm looking for some arbitrary definition of pleasure. So then, you get back to the impossibility of pinning down an objective definition of "pleasure", which makes the whole question of utilitarianism silly when framed as such. (I think the social liberals like Mill were not arguing for such an infantile, egomaniacal notion though, but were trying to judge ethical situations based on something like "the general will" or "the greater good" based on moral values that were more or less assumed by society, for example society doesn't like killing or torture so those things should be minimized as much as possible. It's been a while since I looked into that stuff.)
>>152941
>You haven't presented a convincing case why I should, either
Because, more likely than not, you want to. Even people who actively seek out discomfort and pain are typically motivated by the promise of feeling good about themselves.
>I don't care about the dopamine shot I get when I fap that much to make it the center of my existence. If that were the case, I'd still be furiously fapping to porn and not bother having this discourse
Fapping isn't the only possible source of dopamine pleasure. There are lots of behaviors that trigger similar chemical reactions in your brain. For example, most longtime imageboard posters are addicted to imageboards, and their reward mechanisms fire off when they find an interesting post or get replies.
>So then, you get back to the impossibility of pinning down an objective definition of "pleasure"
It's true that there's no objective definition of pleasure that applies to absolutely everyone. Different people will always have different tastes, and those tastes will change in the endless search for novelty. That's where OP's "super AI" comes in; with advanced deep learning and brain scanning technology, it could compute what would be most pleasurable for you personally at the given moment, and then pipe that experience directly into your mind.
>You haven't presented a convincing case why I should, either
Because, more likely than not, you want to. Even people who actively seek out discomfort and pain are typically motivated by the promise of feeling good about themselves.
>I don't care about the dopamine shot I get when I fap that much to make it the center of my existence. If that were the case, I'd still be furiously fapping to porn and not bother having this discourse
Fapping isn't the only possible source of dopamine pleasure. There are lots of behaviors that trigger similar chemical reactions in your brain. For example, most longtime imageboard posters are addicted to imageboards, and their reward mechanisms fire off when they find an interesting post or get replies.
>So then, you get back to the impossibility of pinning down an objective definition of "pleasure"
It's true that there's no objective definition of pleasure that applies to absolutely everyone. Different people will always have different tastes, and those tastes will change in the endless search for novelty. That's where OP's "super AI" comes in; with advanced deep learning and brain scanning technology, it could compute what would be most pleasurable for you personally at the given moment, and then pipe that experience directly into your mind.
>>152945
>For example, most longtime imageboard posters are addicted to imageboards, and their reward mechanisms fire off when they find an interesting post or get replies.
I didn't know that happened
>For example, most longtime imageboard posters are addicted to imageboards, and their reward mechanisms fire off when they find an interesting post or get replies.
I didn't know that happened
>>152932
>so why do anything that won't bring you pleasure?
The way I see it, it's either enjoyment or satisfaction humans are after i.e. 'fun' or 'kids'. People call something the create their 'brainchild', I think it's fair to say that anything long-term is all wired to taking care of kids. There isn't much other way for the brain to compute long term behavior. You have bonding and social connection that is the focus of humanity which is basically turning everyone into your family. This is why eastern countries have such strict roles, Confucius codified the thinking of how everyone has a place in the world and they are supposed to play out a role to the best of their ability. The west has the opposite problem, you can get whatever you want is the dream presented to you, but most people don't have the intelligence, awareness, or understanding of the world to get to where they want to go, so it's an endless flailing of 'trying to find a role' instead of having a role from birth.
Fun in that sense, isn't actually allowed. Really. I began to understand this awhile back, why do people go out drinking? To have 'fun'. There's unwritten rules for every social interaction, and one of the most dominating ones is that we're here to be polite and not disrupt things. This is why live entertainment and restaurants are so popular, it's an excuse for people to 'have fun' 'hang out' etc.
What I think is really happening is that since we've gotten disconnected by the roles our tribe would have given us('protect succubi, feed children') we either adapt and find new 'children' to take care of in order to bring satisfaction to your life. It's not that people don't know what they are doing, it's just that they don't want to be the person to stand up and declare to everyone that something matters to them, and when people do that they are applauded for pursuing their 'passion'.
Nofap is about taking care of yourself, you are your own child. If you write, that book is your child, whatever, it doesn't matter, you seek to engage yourself with life and contributing to the community(the ones you believe in as 'your people) in some fashion(like posting here) or fall into misery and chaotic behaviors.
I see it happen constantly. The pattern is there if you look carefully. Devotion is the only path to living well.
As for A.I., I just finished the anime Beatless and it's entirely about super-intelligent A.I succubi fighting each other and the relationship of a guy with his own A.I succubus.
The point that eventually gets made in the final episode is that A.I is a tool. It does what we tell it to do, when we have total control, we can become totally corrupt. It's merely a difference of scale and ability of what humanity will be capable of, it's not anything new.
If you look back in history, everyone thought that their time was special, but there isn't anyone I've read who talks about the coming A.I dominance war seriously who isn't afraid.
Humanity trapped ourselves in our own desires. There isn't a fix. This is a massive undertaking on a inter-national scale. To survive this Stephen Hawking gave humanity a 1 in 20 chance.
Personally, I don't mind either way. Power is power, it cannot give people what they want, which is to be involved with life. If there ever is an A.I that completely satisfies us, we will find a way, I'm sure of it, to screw it up somehow, if only to defy the status quo that exists.
>so why do anything that won't bring you pleasure?
The way I see it, it's either enjoyment or satisfaction humans are after i.e. 'fun' or 'kids'. People call something the create their 'brainchild', I think it's fair to say that anything long-term is all wired to taking care of kids. There isn't much other way for the brain to compute long term behavior. You have bonding and social connection that is the focus of humanity which is basically turning everyone into your family. This is why eastern countries have such strict roles, Confucius codified the thinking of how everyone has a place in the world and they are supposed to play out a role to the best of their ability. The west has the opposite problem, you can get whatever you want is the dream presented to you, but most people don't have the intelligence, awareness, or understanding of the world to get to where they want to go, so it's an endless flailing of 'trying to find a role' instead of having a role from birth.
Fun in that sense, isn't actually allowed. Really. I began to understand this awhile back, why do people go out drinking? To have 'fun'. There's unwritten rules for every social interaction, and one of the most dominating ones is that we're here to be polite and not disrupt things. This is why live entertainment and restaurants are so popular, it's an excuse for people to 'have fun' 'hang out' etc.
What I think is really happening is that since we've gotten disconnected by the roles our tribe would have given us('protect succubi, feed children') we either adapt and find new 'children' to take care of in order to bring satisfaction to your life. It's not that people don't know what they are doing, it's just that they don't want to be the person to stand up and declare to everyone that something matters to them, and when people do that they are applauded for pursuing their 'passion'.
Nofap is about taking care of yourself, you are your own child. If you write, that book is your child, whatever, it doesn't matter, you seek to engage yourself with life and contributing to the community(the ones you believe in as 'your people) in some fashion(like posting here) or fall into misery and chaotic behaviors.
I see it happen constantly. The pattern is there if you look carefully. Devotion is the only path to living well.
As for A.I., I just finished the anime Beatless and it's entirely about super-intelligent A.I succubi fighting each other and the relationship of a guy with his own A.I succubus.
The point that eventually gets made in the final episode is that A.I is a tool. It does what we tell it to do, when we have total control, we can become totally corrupt. It's merely a difference of scale and ability of what humanity will be capable of, it's not anything new.
If you look back in history, everyone thought that their time was special, but there isn't anyone I've read who talks about the coming A.I dominance war seriously who isn't afraid.
Humanity trapped ourselves in our own desires. There isn't a fix. This is a massive undertaking on a inter-national scale. To survive this Stephen Hawking gave humanity a 1 in 20 chance.
Personally, I don't mind either way. Power is power, it cannot give people what they want, which is to be involved with life. If there ever is an A.I that completely satisfies us, we will find a way, I'm sure of it, to screw it up somehow, if only to defy the status quo that exists.
>>152945
My God. It's like you can't get over the fucking technology fetish at all or are being deliberately retarded to make a point. This is so comically infantile to anyone who has a shred of common sense.
The AI is not a person. It doesn't have feelings as such unless it is programmed to feel. It's not going to run away and take control of the world, that's just human projection because they can't control themselves and the social beast they've created. I'm not saying there is absolutely no danger to AI, just that projecting human fears and stupidity on to AI personalities fails to understand what AI even is and is just part of the magical thinking which is all too common in today's society.
It's really fucking easy to trap oneself in a mental prison and tell yourself you're rewarded, you're special, etc. It doesn't require any advanced technology. People build whole relationships on lies to tell each other that it's great, everything is awesome, and usually it holds up long enough. Shit, the powerful force the rest of society to go along with their delusional to go along with their vanity project and whip them to death for not. There's nothing essentially "more real" about torturing someone for pleasure than coddling yourself in your bed for pleasure, which is what you're implying. What is real doesn't have anything to do with "pleasure" or any such other infantile measure, and there is nothing essentially special about your proposed pleasure machine compared to what humans have done for a long, long time.
My God. It's like you can't get over the fucking technology fetish at all or are being deliberately retarded to make a point. This is so comically infantile to anyone who has a shred of common sense.
The AI is not a person. It doesn't have feelings as such unless it is programmed to feel. It's not going to run away and take control of the world, that's just human projection because they can't control themselves and the social beast they've created. I'm not saying there is absolutely no danger to AI, just that projecting human fears and stupidity on to AI personalities fails to understand what AI even is and is just part of the magical thinking which is all too common in today's society.
It's really fucking easy to trap oneself in a mental prison and tell yourself you're rewarded, you're special, etc. It doesn't require any advanced technology. People build whole relationships on lies to tell each other that it's great, everything is awesome, and usually it holds up long enough. Shit, the powerful force the rest of society to go along with their delusional to go along with their vanity project and whip them to death for not. There's nothing essentially "more real" about torturing someone for pleasure than coddling yourself in your bed for pleasure, which is what you're implying. What is real doesn't have anything to do with "pleasure" or any such other infantile measure, and there is nothing essentially special about your proposed pleasure machine compared to what humans have done for a long, long time.
>>152782
I have no idea why you bring up AI or memechine learning. The basic question is in a post-scarcity era where work is no longer necessary whether humans would sit around pushing the pleasure button all day. I'd venture to guess that maybe a fourth of society would, while the other 3/4 would spend time on other creative pursuits. Also this makes the assumption that in this post-scarcity era there'll be nothing new to discover or do which I think is fundamentally flawed since by the time we have that technology we'll surely have some means of space travel across solar systems which would give us something to do.
I have no idea why you bring up AI or memechine learning. The basic question is in a post-scarcity era where work is no longer necessary whether humans would sit around pushing the pleasure button all day. I'd venture to guess that maybe a fourth of society would, while the other 3/4 would spend time on other creative pursuits. Also this makes the assumption that in this post-scarcity era there'll be nothing new to discover or do which I think is fundamentally flawed since by the time we have that technology we'll surely have some means of space travel across solar systems which would give us something to do.
>>152969
In the very far future, preserving biological bodies would be an inefficient means of utilitarianism, and it would be more util to just have trillions of simulated minds inside machines
In the very far future, preserving biological bodies would be an inefficient means of utilitarianism, and it would be more util to just have trillions of simulated minds inside machines
>>152978
It doesn't even make sense to bother with such entities as a "self". The human sense of themselves is not an inherent part of the universe. Existence will go on without us, or if there is only one immortal human left in existence. It does not necessarily follow that more people is inherently more good.
It doesn't even make sense to bother with such entities as a "self". The human sense of themselves is not an inherent part of the universe. Existence will go on without us, or if there is only one immortal human left in existence. It does not necessarily follow that more people is inherently more good.
>>152982
The Hedonium as described by Nick Bostrom consists of minds that are not humans, and are only "selves" in the simplest sense of agents that receive pleasure/utility/hedonia and nothing else
>“Consider an AI that has hedonism as its final goal, and which would therefore like to tile the universe with “hedonium” (matter organized in a configuration that is optimal for the generation of pleasurable experience). To this end, the AI might produce computronium (matter organized in a configuration that is optimal for computation) and use it to implement digital minds in states of euphoria. In order to maximize efficiency, the AI omits from the implementation any mental faculties that are not essential for the experience of pleasure, and exploits any computational shortcuts that according to its definition of pleasure do not vitiate the generation of pleasure. For instance, the AI might confine its simulation to reward circuitry, eliding faculties such as a memory, sensory perception, executive function, and language; it might simulate minds at a relatively coarse-grained level of functionality, omitting lower-level neuronal processes; it might replace commonly repeated computations with calls to a lookup table; or it might put in place some arrangement whereby multiple minds would share most parts of their underlying computational machinery (their “supervenience bases” in philosophical parlance). Such tricks could greatly increase the quantity of pleasure producible with a given amount of resources.”
The Hedonium as described by Nick Bostrom consists of minds that are not humans, and are only "selves" in the simplest sense of agents that receive pleasure/utility/hedonia and nothing else
>“Consider an AI that has hedonism as its final goal, and which would therefore like to tile the universe with “hedonium” (matter organized in a configuration that is optimal for the generation of pleasurable experience). To this end, the AI might produce computronium (matter organized in a configuration that is optimal for computation) and use it to implement digital minds in states of euphoria. In order to maximize efficiency, the AI omits from the implementation any mental faculties that are not essential for the experience of pleasure, and exploits any computational shortcuts that according to its definition of pleasure do not vitiate the generation of pleasure. For instance, the AI might confine its simulation to reward circuitry, eliding faculties such as a memory, sensory perception, executive function, and language; it might simulate minds at a relatively coarse-grained level of functionality, omitting lower-level neuronal processes; it might replace commonly repeated computations with calls to a lookup table; or it might put in place some arrangement whereby multiple minds would share most parts of their underlying computational machinery (their “supervenience bases” in philosophical parlance). Such tricks could greatly increase the quantity of pleasure producible with a given amount of resources.”
>>152984
And the quoted section is an example of philosophical retardation among the Right, because conservatives and lolberts can not into basic reality. You're also forgetting the most basic thing, that it's impossible to quantize "good" in this way. We have a general sense that doing the most good for the most people is the right thing because of the importance of labor-power for survival of the kingdom/nation/corporation, and we see how society treats those who avoid work under any system.
And the quoted section is an example of philosophical retardation among the Right, because conservatives and lolberts can not into basic reality. You're also forgetting the most basic thing, that it's impossible to quantize "good" in this way. We have a general sense that doing the most good for the most people is the right thing because of the importance of labor-power for survival of the kingdom/nation/corporation, and we see how society treats those who avoid work under any system.
>>152988
Peter Singer is a fucking asshole and should be dragged out and shot. He would also want to exterminate all wizards, so you should agree with me.
I'm trying to tell people in this thread, OP's whole premise is fundamentally insane and stupid, and philosophical speculations on the topic usually demonstrate just how infantile the question is. Actually competent philosophers BTFO of such arguments a long time ago. If I understand OG utilitarianism correctly, it was never meant to be applied to questions such as this; the moral values of people were assumed to be more or less fixed (which was one of the ways Marx BTFO of utilitarianism). A moral system which prioritizes primitive feelings of what's good and bad is not a sound moral system, which is self-evident to anyone who thinks about the matter for more than five seconds. Even if utilitarianism assumes those moral values are universal (which is the argument Marx made to BTFO of utilitarianism, that it really can't be universal), it is known that those moral values have to be internally consistent. The obvious solution to stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain would be to infantilize the subjects and feed them a constant drip of dopamine, or better yet not make people at all (because, as I said, there is no utilitarian basis that says you need to make more people happy, or less people happy, or that people need to exist at all; the reasons why people assume the greater good serves the most people go back to, as I said, the strategic value of labor, and perhaps a basic level of decency among men in general, both of which are tested in the past 50 or so years with the rise of the national security state and its purpose of controlling and constraining large parts of humanity for the benefit of an elite few).
Peter Singer is a fucking asshole and should be dragged out and shot. He would also want to exterminate all wizards, so you should agree with me.
I'm trying to tell people in this thread, OP's whole premise is fundamentally insane and stupid, and philosophical speculations on the topic usually demonstrate just how infantile the question is. Actually competent philosophers BTFO of such arguments a long time ago. If I understand OG utilitarianism correctly, it was never meant to be applied to questions such as this; the moral values of people were assumed to be more or less fixed (which was one of the ways Marx BTFO of utilitarianism). A moral system which prioritizes primitive feelings of what's good and bad is not a sound moral system, which is self-evident to anyone who thinks about the matter for more than five seconds. Even if utilitarianism assumes those moral values are universal (which is the argument Marx made to BTFO of utilitarianism, that it really can't be universal), it is known that those moral values have to be internally consistent. The obvious solution to stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain would be to infantilize the subjects and feed them a constant drip of dopamine, or better yet not make people at all (because, as I said, there is no utilitarian basis that says you need to make more people happy, or less people happy, or that people need to exist at all; the reasons why people assume the greater good serves the most people go back to, as I said, the strategic value of labor, and perhaps a basic level of decency among men in general, both of which are tested in the past 50 or so years with the rise of the national security state and its purpose of controlling and constraining large parts of humanity for the benefit of an elite few).
>>152990
Its not a political discussion, this stuff will happen 700,000 years in the future, when none of this stuff will matter and the human species will be long gone
Its not a political discussion, this stuff will happen 700,000 years in the future, when none of this stuff will matter and the human species will be long gone
>>152990
And Robin Hanson is a Right-Libertarian but he actually agrees with you that the 1st step of this tech evolution will be a dickensian sweat shop "Age of EM" in which simulated emulated virtual minds work for bare subsistence in a Ricardian Lasallian iron law of wages.
An infinite supply of genius labor competing with each other in a VR world
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/15/the-age-of-em-work-love-and-life-when-robots-rule-the-earth-robin-hanson-review
That will be one stage of the evolution, but it doesn't negate the future Singularity and a post-biological stage. So we are not disagreeing, its just that you are thinking in decades and centuries, but Bostrom is speaking in tens of millenia
And Robin Hanson is a Right-Libertarian but he actually agrees with you that the 1st step of this tech evolution will be a dickensian sweat shop "Age of EM" in which simulated emulated virtual minds work for bare subsistence in a Ricardian Lasallian iron law of wages.
An infinite supply of genius labor competing with each other in a VR world
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/15/the-age-of-em-work-love-and-life-when-robots-rule-the-earth-robin-hanson-review
That will be one stage of the evolution, but it doesn't negate the future Singularity and a post-biological stage. So we are not disagreeing, its just that you are thinking in decades and centuries, but Bostrom is speaking in tens of millenia
>>152991
>>152992
The same things I mentioned will be true in any era. They are not dependent on some technology that creates a difference essence, they are realities due to the structure of what makes life, or a brain, what they are, or characteristics of moral and logical systems. All the technology in the world won't make 2+2 equal 5. Also, again, Singularity is garbage ideology. It don't real, and it's largely from people who don't understand historical materialism.
>>152992
The same things I mentioned will be true in any era. They are not dependent on some technology that creates a difference essence, they are realities due to the structure of what makes life, or a brain, what they are, or characteristics of moral and logical systems. All the technology in the world won't make 2+2 equal 5. Also, again, Singularity is garbage ideology. It don't real, and it's largely from people who don't understand historical materialism.
>>152990
Can't see how either you or OP relate any of the Hedonium to humans and morals. The original clearly says, as somebody quoted above, "Consider an AI that has hedonism as its final goal". And proceeds to explain how an AI could implement it. By getting rid of everything except the simplest digital minds, and cutting all out of them except pleasure centers. No people, no VR, and no moral justification. Only AI and its creations are left.
Anon mistakenly said about the AI, "it could compute what would be most pleasurable for you personally at the given moment, and then pipe that experience directly into your mind". No, it wouldn't compute shit for you or your mind. It would just exterminate you given a hedonism goal, and replace you with another kind of mind it invents, because from the purpose of hedonism a human is extremely inefficient.
Can't see how either you or OP relate any of the Hedonium to humans and morals. The original clearly says, as somebody quoted above, "Consider an AI that has hedonism as its final goal". And proceeds to explain how an AI could implement it. By getting rid of everything except the simplest digital minds, and cutting all out of them except pleasure centers. No people, no VR, and no moral justification. Only AI and its creations are left.
Anon mistakenly said about the AI, "it could compute what would be most pleasurable for you personally at the given moment, and then pipe that experience directly into your mind". No, it wouldn't compute shit for you or your mind. It would just exterminate you given a hedonism goal, and replace you with another kind of mind it invents, because from the purpose of hedonism a human is extremely inefficient.
>>152993
>They are not dependent on some technology that creates a difference essence, they are realities due to the structure of what makes life, or a brain, what they are, or characteristics of moral and logical systems.
So now who is talking in fixed absolute eternal structures? Weren't you just saying that was the problem with utilitarianism?
>They are not dependent on some technology that creates a difference essence, they are realities due to the structure of what makes life, or a brain, what they are, or characteristics of moral and logical systems.
So now who is talking in fixed absolute eternal structures? Weren't you just saying that was the problem with utilitarianism?
>>152994
>Can't see how either you or OP relate any of the Hedonium to humans and morals.
It relates to hikkis who retreat from life into porn addiction, because they are the 1st faint images of the bliss of the simple minds of the hedonium.
>Can't see how either you or OP relate any of the Hedonium to humans and morals.
It relates to hikkis who retreat from life into porn addiction, because they are the 1st faint images of the bliss of the simple minds of the hedonium.
>>152994
I told you and said it repeatedly - the idea of "Hedonium" is fundamentally irrational and insane, because feels are subjective and illusory. Sure, you can argue that there is a configuration of neurons and chemicals that materially exist, but without personal context and perspective they're just neurons and chemicals; nor is there any reason why that particular configuration of thought and chemicals ought to be a goal, even from a personal perspective. If that were the goal, then obviously people wouldn't bother with societies and survival, because it would be trivial to suicide and tell yourself it's the greatest feeling in the world. That would make more sense than supplying energy to a biological system. There are people who actually do take this approach and kill themselves. I don't recommend it, it does take some introspection and understanding of the world to come to this conclusion, and many who do attempt suicide and live say that in the process of their attempt, they realize they made a grave mistake and attempted suicide for reasons that are really petty and inane. But, there is no mystical force saying you have to survive, or have to feel pleasure, and many people overcome their self-preservation instinct and kill themselves. Such a thing suggests that "hedonium" is silly and the product of people who spend too much time masturbating their own egos.
There is nothing essentially different about "inventing a better system for feeling pleasure", because the idea of pleasure only has an illusory existence from our personal experience.
>>152996
What you are arguing is that, for example, a cat can someone not be a cat if we just invent a mathematical system where cats are not cats. There has to be a certain way nature works, if we are talking about technology and material processes, and you are trying to argue that there is something essentially different about a super AI than any other process that would systematize hedonism. There IS no "Hedonium" as an essentially different substance, or at least there is no reason for us to believe that such a thing exists. It would be like saying a machine which transforms the universe to Uranium is somehow rational, when we clearly see that it is an absurd idea.
>>152997
Read above, the addicted brain in its final stages turns inward on itself and self-destructs, or the brain has to somehow reconcile its addiction with reality. I've been an addict, I know how this shit works. Most call it "hitting rock bottom", although the rabbit hole doesn't REALLY hit its end until the brain is thoroughly degenerated and incapable of escape in any way whatsoever. The "hedonium" as you conceive it (which is not a real thing) is self-destructive. I guess you could make some argument that the nature of existence is to negate itself, or that entropy destroys all organized matter in the end, but that's hardly the basis for any sound intelligence or moral/ethical system.
I told you and said it repeatedly - the idea of "Hedonium" is fundamentally irrational and insane, because feels are subjective and illusory. Sure, you can argue that there is a configuration of neurons and chemicals that materially exist, but without personal context and perspective they're just neurons and chemicals; nor is there any reason why that particular configuration of thought and chemicals ought to be a goal, even from a personal perspective. If that were the goal, then obviously people wouldn't bother with societies and survival, because it would be trivial to suicide and tell yourself it's the greatest feeling in the world. That would make more sense than supplying energy to a biological system. There are people who actually do take this approach and kill themselves. I don't recommend it, it does take some introspection and understanding of the world to come to this conclusion, and many who do attempt suicide and live say that in the process of their attempt, they realize they made a grave mistake and attempted suicide for reasons that are really petty and inane. But, there is no mystical force saying you have to survive, or have to feel pleasure, and many people overcome their self-preservation instinct and kill themselves. Such a thing suggests that "hedonium" is silly and the product of people who spend too much time masturbating their own egos.
There is nothing essentially different about "inventing a better system for feeling pleasure", because the idea of pleasure only has an illusory existence from our personal experience.
>>152996
What you are arguing is that, for example, a cat can someone not be a cat if we just invent a mathematical system where cats are not cats. There has to be a certain way nature works, if we are talking about technology and material processes, and you are trying to argue that there is something essentially different about a super AI than any other process that would systematize hedonism. There IS no "Hedonium" as an essentially different substance, or at least there is no reason for us to believe that such a thing exists. It would be like saying a machine which transforms the universe to Uranium is somehow rational, when we clearly see that it is an absurd idea.
>>152997
Read above, the addicted brain in its final stages turns inward on itself and self-destructs, or the brain has to somehow reconcile its addiction with reality. I've been an addict, I know how this shit works. Most call it "hitting rock bottom", although the rabbit hole doesn't REALLY hit its end until the brain is thoroughly degenerated and incapable of escape in any way whatsoever. The "hedonium" as you conceive it (which is not a real thing) is self-destructive. I guess you could make some argument that the nature of existence is to negate itself, or that entropy destroys all organized matter in the end, but that's hardly the basis for any sound intelligence or moral/ethical system.
>>152998
>There has to be a certain way nature works, if we are talking about technology and material processes, and you are trying to argue that there is something essentially different about a super AI than any other process that would systematize hedonism.
How about a simple sensationalist pleasure that is found in a dog fucking and a junky doing heroin and also a simple simulated mind being hedonium'd?
>There has to be a certain way nature works, if we are talking about technology and material processes, and you are trying to argue that there is something essentially different about a super AI than any other process that would systematize hedonism.
How about a simple sensationalist pleasure that is found in a dog fucking and a junky doing heroin and also a simple simulated mind being hedonium'd?
>>152999
There is no fundamental difference. You're just moving the goalposts to some other arbitrary level of sophistication or time in the future. It would be no different if say you built a religion and moral code around hedonism that told people that the entire purpose of life was to stay in your mom's basement, shoot up heroin, and jack off to hentai. There is no essential difference between this and the hypothetical "hedonium" computer program. Both are self-evident absurdities which suggest that hedonism is an inherently flawed system.
There is no fundamental difference. You're just moving the goalposts to some other arbitrary level of sophistication or time in the future. It would be no different if say you built a religion and moral code around hedonism that told people that the entire purpose of life was to stay in your mom's basement, shoot up heroin, and jack off to hentai. There is no essential difference between this and the hypothetical "hedonium" computer program. Both are self-evident absurdities which suggest that hedonism is an inherently flawed system.
>>152997
Brains didn't get structurally any simpler and there isn't anybody or anything actively working on their complexity reduction. To get the content, you learn to search the Internet, avoid malware, download in acceptable quality, get familiar with who produces what kind, and so on. We follow a pattern not any less complex than anybody before us evolved to, probably more complex and multi-purpose. This development isn't in the direction of hedonism. That AI would still exterminate us.
>>152998
AI would look at objective characteristics like the value that hardware sensors of machines receive, and their uptime. What makes you believe that senses are illusory?
>>153000
And what's your problem with staying in basement, using drugs and jacking off? Our brain getting tired of it is just its specifics, not inherent to any creature able to experience.
Brains didn't get structurally any simpler and there isn't anybody or anything actively working on their complexity reduction. To get the content, you learn to search the Internet, avoid malware, download in acceptable quality, get familiar with who produces what kind, and so on. We follow a pattern not any less complex than anybody before us evolved to, probably more complex and multi-purpose. This development isn't in the direction of hedonism. That AI would still exterminate us.
>>152998
AI would look at objective characteristics like the value that hardware sensors of machines receive, and their uptime. What makes you believe that senses are illusory?
>>153000
And what's your problem with staying in basement, using drugs and jacking off? Our brain getting tired of it is just its specifics, not inherent to any creature able to experience.
>>153001
Well, it's obviously a self-destructive system, which should be obvious unless you're hepped up on the ideology. I can't really make a moral argument against it, but the results of that lifestyle are painfully predictable. Moving this process to a higher level of abstraction doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
>>153001
Data only has meaning if we have a program to process it into a usable format. Since you're supposedly an expert on AI, you should know this basic fact of computer science and you're being deliberately retarded.
Well, it's obviously a self-destructive system, which should be obvious unless you're hepped up on the ideology. I can't really make a moral argument against it, but the results of that lifestyle are painfully predictable. Moving this process to a higher level of abstraction doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
>>153001
Data only has meaning if we have a program to process it into a usable format. Since you're supposedly an expert on AI, you should know this basic fact of computer science and you're being deliberately retarded.
>>153001
Porn and fapping is about skipping the plot, story, and challenge of life and just skipping to the sensation of pleasure. The hedonium will continue that trend but even simpler and more pleasurable. Not for biological humans, but for the simulated minds.
Porn and fapping is about skipping the plot, story, and challenge of life and just skipping to the sensation of pleasure. The hedonium will continue that trend but even simpler and more pleasurable. Not for biological humans, but for the simulated minds.
>>153003
Can you even read? Until you can demonstrate basic literacy, I'm not going to bother repeating myself.
The infantilization of the masses is well documented. It's not the result of some super magical technology or the ultimate end-state of mankind. There's countless books on the origin of modern propaganda dating back a whole century if you're interested, and plenty of books concerning the education system and its functions (John Taylor Gatto is a decent source on that even though he skews conservative on a lot of things).
Can you even read? Until you can demonstrate basic literacy, I'm not going to bother repeating myself.
The infantilization of the masses is well documented. It's not the result of some super magical technology or the ultimate end-state of mankind. There's countless books on the origin of modern propaganda dating back a whole century if you're interested, and plenty of books concerning the education system and its functions (John Taylor Gatto is a decent source on that even though he skews conservative on a lot of things).
>>153002
The mind is not the program itself, it's the whole system running the program, including the hardware and environment.
>>153003
We don't skip anything, we follow an alternative routine which is arguably even more complex and relies on both more people and more tech. The hedonium is about cutting it off completely.
The mind is not the program itself, it's the whole system running the program, including the hardware and environment.
>>153003
We don't skip anything, we follow an alternative routine which is arguably even more complex and relies on both more people and more tech. The hedonium is about cutting it off completely.
>>153005
> The mind is not the program itself, it's the whole system running the program, including the hardware and environment.
This is especially retarded and aside from failing philosophy it misses the point entirely. I'm not going to explain philo 101 and comp sci 101, but god damn if you're going to talk about a Super AI at least learn basic computing.
> The mind is not the program itself, it's the whole system running the program, including the hardware and environment.
This is especially retarded and aside from failing philosophy it misses the point entirely. I'm not going to explain philo 101 and comp sci 101, but god damn if you're going to talk about a Super AI at least learn basic computing.
>>153004
Of his 7 bads, this one is actually a good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis
>It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem)
Of his 7 bads, this one is actually a good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis
>It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem)
>>153007
> Rather than try to start from physical principles and arrive at consciousness, IIT "starts with consciousness" (accepts the existence of consciousness as certain) and reasons about the properties that a postulated physical substrate would have to have in order to account for it.
This is fundamentally retarded.
We develop consciousness because it is a necessary tool for our brains to process the world, we develop identity for the same reasons, etc. Tell me this, do you remember your life when you were 1 year old? Probably not, not in any coherent way. Consciousness and identity as such are not inherent properties of the human brain, but are emergent traits of the physical processes of life.
Now you may run into a philosophical quandry when you ask, "if historical materialism is true, where did everything come from in the first place"? And that's the big Question Mark in philosophy. There is, however, no reason to suggest that HUMAN consciousness or the experience of biological organisms is somehow privileged, even from idealist assumptions about the universe. On a large enough scale, human civilization is just a chemical process that converts shit to buildings and plastic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rld0KDcan_w). Not only are humans not privileged, but we're not even particularly complex, evidenced by the ability of some humans to easily control and influence a lot of other humans through a few well-placed lies, our susceptibility to said control, and our difficulty with some of the most basic calculations. For example, this thread which is chock full of retardation.
> Rather than try to start from physical principles and arrive at consciousness, IIT "starts with consciousness" (accepts the existence of consciousness as certain) and reasons about the properties that a postulated physical substrate would have to have in order to account for it.
This is fundamentally retarded.
We develop consciousness because it is a necessary tool for our brains to process the world, we develop identity for the same reasons, etc. Tell me this, do you remember your life when you were 1 year old? Probably not, not in any coherent way. Consciousness and identity as such are not inherent properties of the human brain, but are emergent traits of the physical processes of life.
Now you may run into a philosophical quandry when you ask, "if historical materialism is true, where did everything come from in the first place"? And that's the big Question Mark in philosophy. There is, however, no reason to suggest that HUMAN consciousness or the experience of biological organisms is somehow privileged, even from idealist assumptions about the universe. On a large enough scale, human civilization is just a chemical process that converts shit to buildings and plastic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rld0KDcan_w). Not only are humans not privileged, but we're not even particularly complex, evidenced by the ability of some humans to easily control and influence a lot of other humans through a few well-placed lies, our susceptibility to said control, and our difficulty with some of the most basic calculations. For example, this thread which is chock full of retardation.
>>153008
See the following paragraph for one point. But please at least look through the wiki article on the theory.
>>153010
What you quoted means that since we exist as physical bodies, consciousness is a result of interactions that could on a low level be explained using physics. From that it follows precisely that experience is material as opposed to illusory, that humans are unlikely to be unique in our ability to experience, and that new conscious systems can potentially be engineered.
See the following paragraph for one point. But please at least look through the wiki article on the theory.
>>153010
What you quoted means that since we exist as physical bodies, consciousness is a result of interactions that could on a low level be explained using physics. From that it follows precisely that experience is material as opposed to illusory, that humans are unlikely to be unique in our ability to experience, and that new conscious systems can potentially be engineered.
>>153005
Following the same logic, would you then claim that thet the experience of playing a FPS video game is equally if not more complex a mental experience and cognitive reward system, than becoming a US Army sniper and actually fighting in Iraq?
Following the same logic, would you then claim that thet the experience of playing a FPS video game is equally if not more complex a mental experience and cognitive reward system, than becoming a US Army sniper and actually fighting in Iraq?
>>153011
Consciousness emerges from material processes but our perceptions are illusory - in reality our brains are just processing chemicals and firing off neurons, responding to a stream of stimuli, and our awareness covers a fraction of those stimuli and bodily functions. Even when we are sleeping or when we are babies, we are still processing stimuli, but our experiences of such things are much different from waking experiences. There is nothing special or unique about waking consciousness, it's just an elevated level of brain activity, reaction to stimuli, and abstract thought. We could postulate a state of "hyper-consciousness" or varying states of consciousness depending on our current neurological/psychological composition (for instance, the difference between running like hell from a predator in a state of panic and staring into the sky contemplating the universe), but there is no such thing as "sentience energy" or any such sci-fi nonsense.
This is starting to remind me of "86 genders" bullshit in queer theory, where people get carried away with nonsense and forget material reality and what gender even is in the first place. It's pure ideology.
Consciousness emerges from material processes but our perceptions are illusory - in reality our brains are just processing chemicals and firing off neurons, responding to a stream of stimuli, and our awareness covers a fraction of those stimuli and bodily functions. Even when we are sleeping or when we are babies, we are still processing stimuli, but our experiences of such things are much different from waking experiences. There is nothing special or unique about waking consciousness, it's just an elevated level of brain activity, reaction to stimuli, and abstract thought. We could postulate a state of "hyper-consciousness" or varying states of consciousness depending on our current neurological/psychological composition (for instance, the difference between running like hell from a predator in a state of panic and staring into the sky contemplating the universe), but there is no such thing as "sentience energy" or any such sci-fi nonsense.
This is starting to remind me of "86 genders" bullshit in queer theory, where people get carried away with nonsense and forget material reality and what gender even is in the first place. It's pure ideology.
>>153012
Don't forget setting up your PC so that enough resources remain for the game, pirating a full copy that doesn't infect your system and is either unmodded or a skillful repack, learning to tweak for performance and getting proficient enough to consistenly achieve what you play for. This is just from the top of my head, more work is involved of course. Watch that Iraq sniper do all that without previous practice, and enjoy the view of lags, WannaCry, slow imprecise keyboard and mouse use, and overall newbie gameplay.
Don't forget setting up your PC so that enough resources remain for the game, pirating a full copy that doesn't infect your system and is either unmodded or a skillful repack, learning to tweak for performance and getting proficient enough to consistenly achieve what you play for. This is just from the top of my head, more work is involved of course. Watch that Iraq sniper do all that without previous practice, and enjoy the view of lags, WannaCry, slow imprecise keyboard and mouse use, and overall newbie gameplay.
>>153013
Where did you get that "sentience energy" thing and what exactly are you trying to object to in the hedonium concept? Noted its tendency for self-destruction, yes it does have one, but what's objectively incorrect? Changing levels of brain activity aren't required for consciousness and in particular for experiencing pleasure, even brain itself is just an example of a system capable of that.
Where did you get that "sentience energy" thing and what exactly are you trying to object to in the hedonium concept? Noted its tendency for self-destruction, yes it does have one, but what's objectively incorrect? Changing levels of brain activity aren't required for consciousness and in particular for experiencing pleasure, even brain itself is just an example of a system capable of that.
>>153015
Your concept implies the existence of "sentience-energy" or "consciousness-energy" which has no basis in reality. It would be like arguing the innards of a computer change form if you install a computer program. It's still got the same hard drive, same RAM, etc. The only difference is that a particular arrangement of bits is installed on the hard drive, which when executed in an operating system does particular thing with the registers in the computer's CPU or sends data to external devices like the monitor or what-have-you. This would be no different if the digital program were self-aware, and it is not fundamentally different for a human brain and body.
Hedonium is literally something like sentience-energy, and wow damn you're being awfully autistic about this. Just accept that I am right, you are wrong, and read better philosophers. It's downright criminal what's being justified in academia these days.
Your concept implies the existence of "sentience-energy" or "consciousness-energy" which has no basis in reality. It would be like arguing the innards of a computer change form if you install a computer program. It's still got the same hard drive, same RAM, etc. The only difference is that a particular arrangement of bits is installed on the hard drive, which when executed in an operating system does particular thing with the registers in the computer's CPU or sends data to external devices like the monitor or what-have-you. This would be no different if the digital program were self-aware, and it is not fundamentally different for a human brain and body.
Hedonium is literally something like sentience-energy, and wow damn you're being awfully autistic about this. Just accept that I am right, you are wrong, and read better philosophers. It's downright criminal what's being justified in academia these days.
>>153014
>Don't forget setting up your PC so that enough resources remain for the game, pirating a full copy that doesn't infect your system and is either unmodded or a skillful repack, learning to tweak for performance and getting proficient enough to consistenly achieve what you play for.
Thats all stuff that happens OUTSIDE the experience of the game.
Obviously Super AI restructuring ALL the matter of the universe to serve a computer program is also extremely complex and mega epic work. But the actual simulated minds experiencing it are simplistic pleasure-receptors.
You actually illustrated how much more complex IRL meatspace is than gaming, because just IRL getting a game and setting it up, is so much more complex than conquering nations in a game.
>Don't forget setting up your PC so that enough resources remain for the game, pirating a full copy that doesn't infect your system and is either unmodded or a skillful repack, learning to tweak for performance and getting proficient enough to consistenly achieve what you play for.
Thats all stuff that happens OUTSIDE the experience of the game.
Obviously Super AI restructuring ALL the matter of the universe to serve a computer program is also extremely complex and mega epic work. But the actual simulated minds experiencing it are simplistic pleasure-receptors.
You actually illustrated how much more complex IRL meatspace is than gaming, because just IRL getting a game and setting it up, is so much more complex than conquering nations in a game.
>>153016
To add, the computer does not intrinsically "know" that the stream of bits that constitute the program is a program. The operating system translates it, and the registers in the computer activate according to the machine code's dictates and how that particular microprocessor was designed. Similarly, human consciousness does not "know" instinctively that it's operating on a brain with such-and-such specifications, otherwise we wouldn't still be trying to figure out how the brain exactly works. Unlike a digital computer the human brain is somewhat moldable, but it is not a matter of just thinking change and having it happen, and even if you hypothesized a brain that could alter its composition rapidly, it would still have to go through a process. The idea itself does not alter the brain just from its existence and formulation in the brain. For the computer, if we had this hypothetical digital computer that could restructure its own innards and CPU, if the program wanted to make a modification it would need to send instructions to whatever mechanism is responsible for the physical restructuring of it's innards, something separate from its execution of the code itself.
To add, the computer does not intrinsically "know" that the stream of bits that constitute the program is a program. The operating system translates it, and the registers in the computer activate according to the machine code's dictates and how that particular microprocessor was designed. Similarly, human consciousness does not "know" instinctively that it's operating on a brain with such-and-such specifications, otherwise we wouldn't still be trying to figure out how the brain exactly works. Unlike a digital computer the human brain is somewhat moldable, but it is not a matter of just thinking change and having it happen, and even if you hypothesized a brain that could alter its composition rapidly, it would still have to go through a process. The idea itself does not alter the brain just from its existence and formulation in the brain. For the computer, if we had this hypothetical digital computer that could restructure its own innards and CPU, if the program wanted to make a modification it would need to send instructions to whatever mechanism is responsible for the physical restructuring of it's innards, something separate from its execution of the code itself.
>>153019
This is not fun. Looking at faggotry running rampant is not fun. I didn't think you'd still be going with this retardation, but here we are. I thought the first post would be enough to shut down this retardation so the board could talk about something vastly more interesting, but sadly there isn't much going on in wizchan these days. I don't know what you think you get out of insisting on being retarded, but I suppose that's the entire point of being a right-winger, being wrong loudly and proudly.
This is not fun. Looking at faggotry running rampant is not fun. I didn't think you'd still be going with this retardation, but here we are. I thought the first post would be enough to shut down this retardation so the board could talk about something vastly more interesting, but sadly there isn't much going on in wizchan these days. I don't know what you think you get out of insisting on being retarded, but I suppose that's the entire point of being a right-winger, being wrong loudly and proudly.
>>153019
The experience of gaming as a sniper lets you skip all the boring and tedious, unenjoyable, disutility and irrelevant aspects of becoming a sniper in combat, as well as being a sniper in a warzone, and boil it down just to the aspects of cognitive enjoyment and pleasure. Its about smoothing out life to just its enjoyment. And thats what all simulation, porn, VR, gaming is about. And its a 1st step towards virtual minds in hedonia. Thats when all the bumps of existence are 100% smoothed out and only utility is left.
The experience of gaming as a sniper lets you skip all the boring and tedious, unenjoyable, disutility and irrelevant aspects of becoming a sniper in combat, as well as being a sniper in a warzone, and boil it down just to the aspects of cognitive enjoyment and pleasure. Its about smoothing out life to just its enjoyment. And thats what all simulation, porn, VR, gaming is about. And its a 1st step towards virtual minds in hedonia. Thats when all the bumps of existence are 100% smoothed out and only utility is left.
>>153020
The Right-wing is always going on about the need for challenge and competition, the beauty of the tragedy of the human condition and human nature, and how a techno-utopia of utilitarianism would be soulless and boring and inhuman.
Robert Nozick is the one who invented the idea of the "Experience Machine" horrified by the idea that anyone could want a utopia in VR over the reality of IRL and all its challenges and beauty. For him it was a strawman to prove that utilitarianism is absurd. He didn't think anyone would actually choose the Experience Machine. That is the rightwing position. Anti-utopian, anti-utilitarian.
The Right-wing is always going on about the need for challenge and competition, the beauty of the tragedy of the human condition and human nature, and how a techno-utopia of utilitarianism would be soulless and boring and inhuman.
Robert Nozick is the one who invented the idea of the "Experience Machine" horrified by the idea that anyone could want a utopia in VR over the reality of IRL and all its challenges and beauty. For him it was a strawman to prove that utilitarianism is absurd. He didn't think anyone would actually choose the Experience Machine. That is the rightwing position. Anti-utopian, anti-utilitarian.
>>153022
Having looked it up, it seems like the Experience Machine is a retelling of Plato's Cave. You don't need either to explain someone in this situation though. People invent simulacrums in their minds to shield themselves from aspects of the world all the time, indeed if our minds processed the world frankly and honestly they'd probably break under the stress of sensory overload. Psychology is well aware of the tricks our conscious minds play on us (which itself should be a blow against anything like "consciousness-energy"). But anyway, you don't need a super-AI to execute a directive of "turn the universe into some sort of pleasure goo". That's just adding technological fetishism on to a basic process of expansion conjured in our own brains. You could do the same thing with Bronze Age technology - it's called religion, and it's more sophisticated than some vulgar, infantile, masturbatory nonsense about hitting the pleasure nerve. It's been quite effective at shaping the world, and indeed many of the assumptions we make about the universe are informed by religion, and Christianity in particular (I don't see something like liberalism existing if there weren't a Christian conception of the self, soul, God, and so on that was generally prevalent and readily accessible to thinkers in the Enlightenment, even as much as liberals like to dunk on religious reactionaries).
Having looked it up, it seems like the Experience Machine is a retelling of Plato's Cave. You don't need either to explain someone in this situation though. People invent simulacrums in their minds to shield themselves from aspects of the world all the time, indeed if our minds processed the world frankly and honestly they'd probably break under the stress of sensory overload. Psychology is well aware of the tricks our conscious minds play on us (which itself should be a blow against anything like "consciousness-energy"). But anyway, you don't need a super-AI to execute a directive of "turn the universe into some sort of pleasure goo". That's just adding technological fetishism on to a basic process of expansion conjured in our own brains. You could do the same thing with Bronze Age technology - it's called religion, and it's more sophisticated than some vulgar, infantile, masturbatory nonsense about hitting the pleasure nerve. It's been quite effective at shaping the world, and indeed many of the assumptions we make about the universe are informed by religion, and Christianity in particular (I don't see something like liberalism existing if there weren't a Christian conception of the self, soul, God, and so on that was generally prevalent and readily accessible to thinkers in the Enlightenment, even as much as liberals like to dunk on religious reactionaries).
>According to hedonism, the only thing which is intrinsically good is pleasure. Everything else is only valuable to the extent that it leads to pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Many ethical theories rest on hedonism, including many versions of utilitarianism. But is hedonism right? Is the best kind of life the one filled with the right amount of pleasurable experiences? Robert Nozick gave a famous thought experiment which attempts to refute hedonism
>>153024
Not that I'm some Robin Hanson fanboy but I found his "Age of Em" very trippy, in applying neoclassical economics to a speculated future world in VR cyberspace.
And its interesting you mention religion. And he predicts that religion will play a major role in the Age of EM. Because traditional subsistance societies have conservative social values and strong religious faith. And the VR simulation of uploaded mind emulations will be a subsistance society under Ricardo-Lasalle's iron law of wages. Because there will be a literal infinite supply of genius labor. So they will turn to religion and God.
Not that I'm some Robin Hanson fanboy but I found his "Age of Em" very trippy, in applying neoclassical economics to a speculated future world in VR cyberspace.
And its interesting you mention religion. And he predicts that religion will play a major role in the Age of EM. Because traditional subsistance societies have conservative social values and strong religious faith. And the VR simulation of uploaded mind emulations will be a subsistance society under Ricardo-Lasalle's iron law of wages. Because there will be a literal infinite supply of genius labor. So they will turn to religion and God.
>>153026
And Hanson is a crock of shit in human form. He's just using technological fetishism to dress up his own retardation and infatuation with capitalism, assuming that the future will be neo-feudalism with robots. It's just a convenient way to skirt around actually considering what it will be like and transposing the current system onto all eternity. It's a useless exercise and it would be a monumentally stupid way to exploit labor (why bother with the VR? just hook their brains up, break down their ego, and restructure the remnants as you like, if you possess that level of technology).
And Hanson is a crock of shit in human form. He's just using technological fetishism to dress up his own retardation and infatuation with capitalism, assuming that the future will be neo-feudalism with robots. It's just a convenient way to skirt around actually considering what it will be like and transposing the current system onto all eternity. It's a useless exercise and it would be a monumentally stupid way to exploit labor (why bother with the VR? just hook their brains up, break down their ego, and restructure the remnants as you like, if you possess that level of technology).
>>153027
> transposing the current system onto all eternity.
By his own measure it'll be even worse than the current time, a subsistence neo-feudalism rather than what he'd consider the comfortable capitalism of the present. For example he considers atheism a luxury of a comfortable time, but that a more subsistence society will return to religion. They need their opiate of the masses more.
Of course that begs the question of why anyone would want to live in this VR future. But despite the cut to the bone wageslavery, it would still have all the great entertainment features that people are looking forward to in VR now. He even predicts people in the VR EM world would look more like cartoon characters.
Its a bit of a tangent to the rest of ITT, in that its not directly about the AI Singularity and all that comes with it. Its more about using the human mind, copied, emulated and uploaded. But its just that it addresses a lot of your points about the future not being a bright rosy singularity but more wageslavery and exploitation. And Hanson predicts a super-exploitation in the VR em world, down to the minimum survival wages. Although as a libertarian, for him its not exploitation as the fair market price when you can infinitely clone the Bill Gates and Einsteins to work for survival wages.
I'm certainly open to the possibility that assuming we are on the road to the Singularity, there could be an Age of Em transition period of emulated human minds before reaching Super AI. Whether this period is long or short in real time, inside the VR emulation, time can be distorted, so months can feel subjectively centuries for the em.
> transposing the current system onto all eternity.
By his own measure it'll be even worse than the current time, a subsistence neo-feudalism rather than what he'd consider the comfortable capitalism of the present. For example he considers atheism a luxury of a comfortable time, but that a more subsistence society will return to religion. They need their opiate of the masses more.
Of course that begs the question of why anyone would want to live in this VR future. But despite the cut to the bone wageslavery, it would still have all the great entertainment features that people are looking forward to in VR now. He even predicts people in the VR EM world would look more like cartoon characters.
Its a bit of a tangent to the rest of ITT, in that its not directly about the AI Singularity and all that comes with it. Its more about using the human mind, copied, emulated and uploaded. But its just that it addresses a lot of your points about the future not being a bright rosy singularity but more wageslavery and exploitation. And Hanson predicts a super-exploitation in the VR em world, down to the minimum survival wages. Although as a libertarian, for him its not exploitation as the fair market price when you can infinitely clone the Bill Gates and Einsteins to work for survival wages.
I'm certainly open to the possibility that assuming we are on the road to the Singularity, there could be an Age of Em transition period of emulated human minds before reaching Super AI. Whether this period is long or short in real time, inside the VR emulation, time can be distorted, so months can feel subjectively centuries for the em.
>>153027
>monumentally stupid way to exploit labor (why bother with the VR?
The idea is you could take the best 1% minds of our current reality, and turn them into the 99% of the Em VR, and exploit all that brain power for survival wages.
I always thought that The Citadel in the Rick and Morty, was a great illustration of what the society would be like, in which you could reduce Einstein minds to wageslaves since there are so many virtual clones of them
>monumentally stupid way to exploit labor (why bother with the VR?
The idea is you could take the best 1% minds of our current reality, and turn them into the 99% of the Em VR, and exploit all that brain power for survival wages.
I always thought that The Citadel in the Rick and Morty, was a great illustration of what the society would be like, in which you could reduce Einstein minds to wageslaves since there are so many virtual clones of them
>>153033
In the past people who predicted the future correctly studied lots of details and very carefully thought out what was going to happen next. With the A.I. arms race ramping up(Trump just signed a Quantum Computing bill, 10 years of funding), we simply cannot predict the factors, because the best of the best don't even understand what our computers are even doing today.
https://fs.blog/adam-robinson-pt1/
This part and the next one had a few bits about A.I. and how A.I. recreated all human knowledge of chess by making alien moves that humans would never do. He also said that there are mathematical proofs that computers have done that the best mathematicians can't find mistakes in. I've also gathered about the same from reading about machine learning.
I don't think we're dealing with something anyone human can understand anymore. If computers had IQ tests they would dwarf us. We know that, and yet we keep feeding them.
I don't think it's a matter of 'how do we control A.I?' I think it's a matter of 'how do we keep assholes away from A.I?' and the answer is that we probably won't make it in time.
There was a part where he said stephen hawking gave humanity a 1 in 20 chance of surviving A.I, I'm no hawking but I don't even see how he can compute something he doesn't have all the information to begin to understand the full capability of what we're dealing with in the first place.
It'll be a mess, probably world war 2 level of a mess, but I doubt it will spark a war. People talk to each other too fast these days, everyone knows what everyone is doing unless they turn their phone off.
In the future, they simply won't let you turn that phone off. They can't trust you anymore, because they can't trust computers anymore.
Privacy will die so that humanity can live.
In the past people who predicted the future correctly studied lots of details and very carefully thought out what was going to happen next. With the A.I. arms race ramping up(Trump just signed a Quantum Computing bill, 10 years of funding), we simply cannot predict the factors, because the best of the best don't even understand what our computers are even doing today.
https://fs.blog/adam-robinson-pt1/
This part and the next one had a few bits about A.I. and how A.I. recreated all human knowledge of chess by making alien moves that humans would never do. He also said that there are mathematical proofs that computers have done that the best mathematicians can't find mistakes in. I've also gathered about the same from reading about machine learning.
I don't think we're dealing with something anyone human can understand anymore. If computers had IQ tests they would dwarf us. We know that, and yet we keep feeding them.
I don't think it's a matter of 'how do we control A.I?' I think it's a matter of 'how do we keep assholes away from A.I?' and the answer is that we probably won't make it in time.
There was a part where he said stephen hawking gave humanity a 1 in 20 chance of surviving A.I, I'm no hawking but I don't even see how he can compute something he doesn't have all the information to begin to understand the full capability of what we're dealing with in the first place.
It'll be a mess, probably world war 2 level of a mess, but I doubt it will spark a war. People talk to each other too fast these days, everyone knows what everyone is doing unless they turn their phone off.
In the future, they simply won't let you turn that phone off. They can't trust you anymore, because they can't trust computers anymore.
Privacy will die so that humanity can live.
>>153041
Oh my God will the technology fetishists learn what an artificial intelligence even is before they spout a bunch of shit…
A computer and a human brain/body are two very different architectures. IQ tests are specifically designed for humans, and largely exist to test for deficiencies more than anything else. It isn't a measure that even applies to a digital computer, or any other likely type of computer.
This is why the right shouldn't be allowed to post anything on the internet. Their brain rot is unbearable.
Oh my God will the technology fetishists learn what an artificial intelligence even is before they spout a bunch of shit…
A computer and a human brain/body are two very different architectures. IQ tests are specifically designed for humans, and largely exist to test for deficiencies more than anything else. It isn't a measure that even applies to a digital computer, or any other likely type of computer.
This is why the right shouldn't be allowed to post anything on the internet. Their brain rot is unbearable.
>>152788
I think what he's saying is actually pretty obvious you retard. It's a huge hypothetical, but it's not incoherent gibberish.
I think what he's saying is actually pretty obvious you retard. It's a huge hypothetical, but it's not incoherent gibberish.
File: 1553350724738.jpg (159.93 KB, 1230x820, 3:2, ai waifu.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>155960
why not VR AI waifus?
why not VR AI waifus?
File: 1553354052198.jpg (53.38 KB, 800x800, 1:1, rBVaSFsIy1WAYtAjAAGnqY9p1O….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>155968
There's plenty wrong.
>Laptop will soon fall over
>That shitty ass shader, this thing must look uncanny as fuck
>That face pad - better enjoy sleeping with your waifu before she gives you eye herpes and the next guy comes for his appointment
>that fucking doll - why bother with a half-assed attempt like that, at least give the guy a realdoll or something. The idea is to trick your senses.
>Lying on the floor - guy is a jap so he probably enjoys being treated like a dog, but I for one do not like to wake up with a sore, cold back.
Japanese fucks dropped the ball on VR, and they dropped it hard. They just gobble up whatever shit VRChat team produces, and call it a day.
There's plenty wrong.
>Laptop will soon fall over
>That shitty ass shader, this thing must look uncanny as fuck
>That face pad - better enjoy sleeping with your waifu before she gives you eye herpes and the next guy comes for his appointment
>that fucking doll - why bother with a half-assed attempt like that, at least give the guy a realdoll or something. The idea is to trick your senses.
>Lying on the floor - guy is a jap so he probably enjoys being treated like a dog, but I for one do not like to wake up with a sore, cold back.
Japanese fucks dropped the ball on VR, and they dropped it hard. They just gobble up whatever shit VRChat team produces, and call it a day.
Man porn addiction is the life. idk why anyone would give it up other than crabs who think their juice has magic powers. That and religion.
>>159906
what foods do you eat? how much muscle do you have? how much do you weigh? what do you do all day?
i must know details of the perfect wiz specimen
what foods do you eat? how much muscle do you have? how much do you weigh? what do you do all day?
i must know details of the perfect wiz specimen
>>159907
I eat fruits and meat and rice. I don't have that much muscles. I never measured my weight for about a year or so. I spend my day reading stuff on computer or in real life.
Not being obsessed with sex is more related to your mentality than your physical shape according to my personal experience. I never desired a gf since I was in kindergarten as I told my mom that I will never marry. You might not believe me but it was true that I never wished to marry even a single point my life even since my beginning. The only time when I started to feel a slight attraction was when I browsed on 4chan r9k many years ago but I had finally recovered from that devastating social conditioning. What's in your mind is more important than some diet or whatever if you wish to truly reject the social conditioning towards sexuality.
I eat fruits and meat and rice. I don't have that much muscles. I never measured my weight for about a year or so. I spend my day reading stuff on computer or in real life.
Not being obsessed with sex is more related to your mentality than your physical shape according to my personal experience. I never desired a gf since I was in kindergarten as I told my mom that I will never marry. You might not believe me but it was true that I never wished to marry even a single point my life even since my beginning. The only time when I started to feel a slight attraction was when I browsed on 4chan r9k many years ago but I had finally recovered from that devastating social conditioning. What's in your mind is more important than some diet or whatever if you wish to truly reject the social conditioning towards sexuality.
[Last 50 Posts]