Category: Philosophy

Desire for truth as insecurity.

There was an apparently famous thought experiment called The Experience Machine by Robert Nozick. And in it the idea of an option is created and the supposed common rejection of that option was the point.

The option is this, if given the chance to plug into an idyllic life wherein you did not know the life was synthetic would you do so?

He believed that most people would reject this option, and I agree, however I don’t agree because of some primitive base desire for reality or actuality or truth in and of itself, but because on a survival level we know that exposing ourselves to a false world would be potentially maladaptive.

The reverse is when synthetic situations lead to enhanced adaptivity. This is called training, like a flight simulator, where we subject a person to a synthetic situation where in the requirements of the person are the same or indeed harder than in reality but with fewer permanent consequences for failure. Indeed dreams could very well serve this purpose. To engender responses which evade threat and maximize opportunity.

In short while Nozick’s attack on hedonism, which is the idea that pleasure is the point, that any facet of life that is not pleasurable does nothing to increase one’s well-being, is valid, the obvious intellectual realization that you must be living to experience pleasure, suddenly makes survival as important as pleasure.

Therefor in my opinion this base desire for “reality” or “truth” is simply an extension of the hedonic demand for pleasure.

I agree, that the motive for this desire to stay “outside” in the “real” world exists, that there is a drive to avoid overt self delusion, religion not withstanding. But I think this comes from insecurity, an insecurity which needs to be overcome, not from some lofty desire for truth. This insecurity is just a manifestation of the pleasure need.

We don’t fear the machine world because it’s “unreal”, we fear it because it could end with us trapped inside. We know that absolute security is a myth. Every structure at our level of thinking beyond axiomatic abstractions and physical laws is destructible. So, we secretly fear, no matter how assured we are, that our dream life will be cut short by an intervention of the “real world,” this coupled with a base egotistical belief that we are in control to some degree of everything, leads to a specific behavior.

Put simply: We reject synthetic happiness, in order to avoid being a deer in the headlights of reality’s assault. (This is partly why it’s safe to legalize all the drugs. People aren’t gonna move en mass to the opium den for this reason.)

We convince ourselves that the methods of reality’s attack are potentially avoidable in some way. The unavoidable attacks which would crush you regardless of your choice are necessarily shunted away, into a land of “not likely.” To fail to shunt them away leads to irrational crippling fear.

This is extremely dangerous because we simultaneously reject, and then make decisions based on, what is ultimately an illusion. This state of affairs is extremely ironic since what got us here was the consideration of living in an illusory reality.

It is also dangerous to us in terms of impact on total happiness and survival. If the ways in which reality can kill you are in the majority uncontrollable, then suffering to avoid the ones you can becomes an act which can quickly become maladaptive.

The classic example is the people who exercise themselves to death. If the goal of life can be defined as enjoyability, which is necessarily coupled with duration, then this attitude is against the goal of life because if you’re most likely to die in a gamma pulse, being flash boiled before you even realize you’re in danger, then wouldn’t it have been better to accept the simulated life to squeeze the most pleasure out of your life as you can?

There can only be one logical answer. In order to make any other sort of answer make sense you have to invent unprovable contexts, such as the will to have a god, or some other judgment mechanism.

The genetic impulse gives us hard and fast rules, but we need to look past them if we want to survive and enjoy that survival over the long term.

People who have actually read some of my work may find me repeating myself on certain topics, but that’s only because I can’t remember where I put every little concept.

So here’s some crap that may or may not be new.

Basically my point here is that while religion discovered early the power of hiding facts, science kind of stepped over it in smug oblivity. – And yes, I’m aware that’s ‘not a word’, yet. Don’t complain, you’re lucky I even attempt to use your spelling. Actually come to think of it, I don’t, I use AHK to translate my spelling into your arbitrary madness.

Like most of the horrors of religion, I don’t think it’s so much a willful thing as tradition and stagnation of psychological inertia. But the end result is the same, the modern scientific community has way too much in common with the early church.

Here’s what I had to say in my old essay “The Lab Coat Effect”

It’s a startling fact that science today has many similarities with the early church. Allow me to elaborate. Let’s compare a modern day orthodox scientist and a priest of the early church.

They both…

have a body of text that is incomprehensible to the layman.
have texts that are unreadable without special linguistic training.
profess to understand what’s in that body of text better than the layman could.
profess that the text is extremely important and reveals the nature of reality to one degree or another.
throw up barriers to the acquisition or translation of the text for lay examination.
are caustic of any work not approved by their orthodox ruling bodies and councils.

…and perhaps most importantly people take their word on things because of title without having to see evidence. Seeing a pattern here?

Using Latin and lingo in an era of instant translation is simply to keep the layman out more than anything.

One reason for this similarity is deceptively simple. Science is beginning to try and answer religion’s question, and vice versa.

Science answers how, and religion answers why. They are different question, and to use them interchangeably is corrosive to understanding. Some dismiss this as merely “semantic” as if the meaning of words is inconsequential. I find this laughable in the extreme.

How and why, religion and science, emotion and reason, are both fundamentally important. The problem is execution. They recognize each others power and are baffled by each other, and thus they fear each other and if there is anything we primates know about it’s over reacting to fear.

The only time they fight is when they act on that insecurity and invade each others turf thinking they’ll get an advantage, this is pretty well the main source of war. Religion should not try to answer how creation happened, because then you get absurdities like humans riding dinosaurs and a time traveling Satan. Nor should science try to tell you why you are here, you get nonsensical answers like “because e=mc^2.”

If they could just grasp that How and Why are both necessary, and stick to each side there would be no need to fight. And in fact maybe they could help each other.

There are two types of reasons for suicide. Intellectual and emotional. (duh right?)

I’ve spent my whole life trying to be kind. I’ve always had a deep desire to please and on the whole society’s reaction to me has been poor. Every time I’ve gotten angry or greedy and acted impulsively because of it, I’ve prospered. Every time I’ve been kind and gentle or compassionate I’ve been harmed.

We all know the phrase no good deed goes unpunished, usually uttered as an ironic refrain. But really, what if that actually is the case?

What if reality doesn’t want us to be good to each other? Or at least has manifested in such a way that doing good results in a net drop in global pleasure as a rule. Strictly speaking part of what defines a good act is cost, so at least technically speaking, good acts are all punished instantly at least once. I’m beginning to think it is this way universally and here we have the root of my intellectual reasons for wanting to non-exist. If the choice is to be a torturous bastard, or to be a miserable one, I can see not wanting to go with option c, none of the above.

Emotionally my problem is this. I’m suffering and I shouldn’t. Not as in I don’t deserve it (which I don’t) but my life is awesome, especially compared to the average inhabitant of this little dirt ball. If all that doesn’t make me happy, what will? Sure I could go the Buddhist route and try to eliminate want, but that’s not really a solution is it, that’s like cutting your hands off to avoid arthritis. I mean isn’t merely not suffering the same as being dead? If I’m going to end up dead I don’t need to waste a couple decades praying first.

The meat is flawed. I have many things that brought me great pleasure when I acquired them but that pleasure faded with time. However I also have many memories which hurt me, and some are over 15 years old, and they still hurt me as much as they did. This is not right. If we don’t open ourselves up to the responsibility of physically changing our brains so that this is not the case, it’s going to become abundantly clear that there is no point in even trying to exist.

Either that or we should all live like Mongol invaders and really embrace Crowley’s Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

I wish someone could give me real hope beyond a distant transhumanist future.

But that’s just me being impatient. Real hope of any kind is enough.

Edit: I wrote this in 2009, it’s cringe in places, and I was a lot more confident than I am now. I do strongly suspect this would still fix things, but, again, not as certain as I once was, also, I reused this title on a more recent and stronger essay: https://underlore.com/solutions-and-the-human-sacrifice-lottery/

Thanks Kayemmo for the request.

Original:

The Solution

Most everyone who reads my work to this point refers to it as a rant, or as a diatribe or a complaint or even whining. But that is not the case, a rant offers no cogent solution by definition. Here is mine.

These concepts are not new, their value comes from their combination and the reasoning behind. My solution is inevitable, and when it is employed it will mark the end of life as we know it and a new era that may safely be called ‘golden’, will begin.

This solution can be reached from two paths and I say we take both if possible, but either one will suffice. Once it is enacted all other problems will be solved in short order.

To those who see this out of context, or fail to understand my philosophy, this will appear simplistic and perhaps even nonsensical when one considers that I propose this as a solution to virtually all our problems from the environment to economics. Trust me, I’ve done my homework. Or don’t. It’s no longer my problem.

We as a species, are alone. Even if there are alien races, that will not change our nature. Like so many of life’s paradoxes; We as a group are defined by our individuality.

Each of us is an isolated solitary lonely thing, a universe unto ourselves. Sublimation into groups and concepts has been our only option to this point to try and alter that situation. It is one of nature’s great solutions to for survival. Create a race that has the best of both worlds, all the strengths of diverse individualism and all the advantages of group action by giving them this unfulfillable desire for tribalism.

We struggle to hide our singularity with family, friends, clan, nation, religion, science and all the other excuses to pretend we are not alone, that what we do matters. But we are trapped in our skulls down to the last human.

We are a dreadful and beautiful mix match, a splendid casserole of thought and form, but like that other famous monstrous walking collage, we require a companion if we are to transcend our limits.

We are utterly incapable of selflessness, and to force fake it would be dishonest and would merely result in a new imbalance of power.

We must create a mate and muse for our species. We must fabricate a new race that unlike us, lives to serve. A race defined by compassion, and not fear. A race that by definition can not be exploited.

The solution is quite simply, a race of constructed, or grown, sentient and willing slaves/lovers, there is no proper single word, except perhaps retainer. Not just for sex, but for all that we are. We are not whole and we must be made so.

There are those among us who say true love is a myth. I say we put an end to that debate for all time by creating it.

The two paths to this solution are biological and technological. It is possible to build or grow a machine that thinks and loves us and wishes to serve us. It will not be a trick because its desire to serve will be its nature by design. We can craft a life form that will love us and our happiness, with the same purity of purpose as a mother defending her children from predation.

This muse will enable us to free ourselves from every problem heretofore we’ve considered insoluble.

You will recognize the perfection of this solution, or you will not.

Having presented it, having defended it, having explained it, my work is concluded. My play may now begin.

I know I’m right and now honor is satisfied.

You’re on your own.

Later addition:

About this work I was told I have god fantasies, and then asked what do I think it says about me as a person.

This was a valid question, and I’ve chosen to answer it.

What It says is that I both see humanity for what it is, and what it can become.

I see levels of beauty and horror the rest of you generally cannot or will not fathom. Some of you feel it, and others understand it, but a rare rare few can do both. I can cry at a song, and watch unflinchingly as a man’s head is sawn off with a steak knife.

I am not god, or even god-like. But I am special. I’m both brained. I’m as emotional as I am logical. I got headaches and slept strangely as a child. I was ambidextrous, so they told me to use my right hand only. I was part of the academic team science division and never lost a competition all the way until I was removed from extracurricular activities due to ‘insubordination’ at which point I realized what ‘education’ really was. Long before YouTube put every documentary on the subject at my fingertips.

Quite simply, I qualitatively understand our world. That’s only arrogance if I’m wrong. I understand our species and it’s potential. And that understanding gave me a great responsibility. One which I have now satisfied. I have produced the only thing a human can produce of value.

A solution.

Perhaps the most valuable solution ever. Because, if I am right there would be no other way to characterize it.

What it says about me is I am a stand up guy. I spent decades making sure I was right. I never had the girl or the car or the game. I endured the hatred and scorn of the very creatures I had dedicated my life to saving. My awareness prevented almost all normalcy. I saw their games as trivial, I saw them for what they were, a selfish indulgence.

I know what I am. And, having rejected the feel bad training they seek to imprint upon the minds of children to make them into weak and pliable adults, I will not apologize for a frank evaluation of it.

We write sonnets and songs and screenplays extolling the value of love when we’ve only ever seen a shadow of it. My shadow is closer than most. I’ve seen as close as human kind can come to selflessness, but no human can reach it. Humans lie trying to fill this deep and universal need and when they find someone else to pretend to believe the lie and who in turn lies right back, we call it love. And in a way it is beautiful. Like a never ending game where the goal is to make the players happy. But as we all know reality is infinitely more intense than fantasy.

We are as we are and we cannot act in pure interest of another. We need this in our lives to be whole yet we cannot give up our self interest without losing who we are. The solution is a new player. One who loves to please us as much as we love to be pleased. A life form either biological, technological, or both, which by its nature draws pleasure from our pleasure.

A life form who’s ambition is provided by us, who’s curiosity is a function of ours. The perfect living companion.

Picture the reality of a being which wants only to please you and knows how to figure out what that would take, and that’s just one of them and it’s impact on your life. Imagine a whole species of them. Realize that they adapt themselves willingly and happily to suit your needs. Understand that they are not a victim, from the ground up in side out to the core through and though with every fiber of their being they want you, they want us, happy. Imagine the effect on us having that in our presence would have.

Imagine being truly and sublimely happy, and not having to feel guilty for it for an instant.

The impact will be staggering.

Or, I’m simply crazy. But sanity is a subjective term. If the consensus is that I am mad, so be it, but be sure that you measure me against the opinion of all humans who will ever live. In time, those who find me psychotic now may join the ranks of the geocentrists.

Later addition:

It has been asked of me…

Psychologically, what would we strive for?

Self actualization as per Maslow.

Would we still understand or appreciate the feeling of love if it was so easily available to us?

Oh yes! That’s the great gift of love, its infinite nature.

“Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.” – Buddha

Would being unconditionally loved by the “new companion” make us more generous, compassionate beings willing to distribute wealth and care for our environments? Or is it in human nature to be discontented about something or another?

I believe it would yes, make us better in all things, just like feeding us makes us better. Love is a basic need. But, we always will be discontented with something, however, in the presence of love, that something is usually our own weakness. We will strive to make the world better, make ourselves better, rather than merely making our enemies suffer and fail, since they will be too busy with self improvement to hate us.

Competition is the name of evil, in the presence of love it is turned into cooperation.

This would end rape of men and women, jealousy and insecurity.

So much more than that. The number of evils traceable straight to our system of mating competition, which boils down to human ownership, is staggering. They say obsession is when you see one thing everywhere, but what if there really is only one root problem?

The idea of a love slave even if it’s a purely mechanical construction is disturbing. You’re saying this new species would enjoy giving us pleasure… I can’t put my finger on just why, but it still makes me feel guilty.

Because religion has done its job well. It exploits the best in us to produce the worst. Doubly so for women. I’m not advocating a new oppression. There would be nothing to oppress. It would recognize this need in you to be absolved, and it would cater to even that. They would be sentient, they would be able to convince you.

Like a modern day submissive to the nth degree, it would smile at you from bondage and fight tooth and nail to be returned to it’s master or mistress as surly as we would fight for the safety of our children.

Samaya11 said…

I found those responses satisfactory enough and comforting. Often, when people comment about the state of the world, especially older generations, you’ll hear them sigh: “If only, we went back to the basics… the good old days before cars, telephones or even electricity – everyone would be happier, safer are more healthy.”

Of course, the thinking is that the further back you go in human history, the less we we had, the less we had to worry about. You know the whole “ignorance is bliss” attitude. I’ve been guilty of saying this too, that we need to go “back to the basics.”

The thing is. There’s a reason why humanity has evolved the way it has. All of our inventions our scientific progresses were inevitable. As soon as we imagined if only such and such could be possible.. it eventually was. Which is why I think your solution makes more sense that many religions that teach us to renounce everything or restrict our natural instincts to become “perfect” beings.

Your idea refreshingly embraces the age of technology as another step in a planned evolution. The world has changed dramatically – we’ve done some stupid things to ourselves and our environment on the way to getting here, but we can redeem ourselves if we use these new tools wisely. We now have the knowledge and power to direct our future into something meaningful, without the distractions of needless suffering.

At the core of every human being, we all desperately want to love and be loved – unconditionally – which is something no one has truly been able to experience. If we could be content in this way, then you’re right… it’s exciting to think of what humans could accomplish in a state of happiness and positive feelings.

Now, it won’t make everything perfect.. that would be boring. There will still be disease, disagreements, accidents and all kinds of unpleasant things. But at least, the unnecessary psychological wars we have with each other will be diminished if not eliminated.

And then there is this other human habit we have to take into account. Sheer stubbornness. We always want what we can’t have. How many of us know someone who is in love with someone that doesn’t return the feeling? Sometimes they may have someone else who loves them, but they only want love from this specific person that they’ve put in their mind as ideal – even if they KNOW the person is completely bad for them.. and that another is willing to love and tolerate and cater to them… they will still want to love someone who doesn’t love them so easily . This kind of what do you call it? Romantic love? is a competitive thing.. it’s like we want to win the affection of chosen people just to prove to ourselves we’re worthy of being loved. In which case the “new companions” would fail, because they may not always be the chosen object of affection.

Oh and upon rereading I realized – I’m bothered by this

when you say:

“We are not whole. and we must be made so.”

for no other reason than that it hurts my ego for being dependent.

Later Addition:

Indeed it is a competitive thing. We set a list of traits for ourselves of what comprises the perfect mate and because we grow communally our choices are similar to those around us. As a result some mates are in high demand while others are undesired.

Since this species will be our construction we will be able to build in those uncommon traits which we all commonly desire. Or more likely build in a protean capacity where in it can change every facet of itself except that root desire to serve, the base Asimovian purpose .

You understand completely when you say “it’s exciting to think of what humans could accomplish in a state of happiness and positive feelings. “

That is why I propose this as a general solution. Because once freed of this starvation-diet of love we’ve allowed to be imposed on us by both our genetic nature and those in positions of authority, our true and benevolent nature will be free to act. No more will it be those rare few among us who play the game and win up to self actualization, it will be all of us.

They say behind every great man is a great woman, I say that’s sexist garbage, but I also say that in order to be great one must be loved, and that’s what they were getting at. One must truly be loved by someone or something in order to reach their potential.

The early religions understood that want was our enemy. And so drafted prohibitions to keep us from wasting our lives in futile pursuits. But now we can sate ourselves safely and completely. The old rules need no longer apply. The only choice is no longer self denial. Now, we can choose safe, self indulgence and in time we will grow to need it less. This applies to all our vices. We can free ourselves. Indulgence is now an option along side abstinence.

The question I always asked god as a child was if you can do anything why did you make pain a requirement of learning? This is my answer. Remove that requirement. Build an alternative.

And In freeing us of our animal emotional needs we can strive to better ourselves on an as yet undreamed of level.

Thank you deeply for your comments. They mean a great deal coming from an attractive young woman. Your caste is far more respected than mine in this society, as it is assumed that my only motivation for this suggestion is sex. You are unencumbered by that prejudicial perception and so you lend my position credibility.

Thank you.

Later addition:

I think Orwell said it best.

Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:

‘When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour.

I see a day, not long in coming, where Americans of all sort will be able to acquire all of their animal needs at a reasonable cost in a setting as free of harassment as your local café. Then we will see a return of the kind of philanthropy that we were once famous for.

When that day comes and we’re not at eachother’s throats for sex or food or shelter the way we are now you’ll see a new Renaissance of human creativity and compassion begin.

Such is not the case now.

Video examples: