To better become ourselves, we’ve learned to become better disguises of ourselves. Circumspection resolved to paralysis; turning inward to singularity, none of us can in fact be singular strapped to an examination table.
The panopticon has become the pantechnicon. Radical freedom and radical constraint sit very close together indeed.
I do wonder if all the people who fall for absurd scams aren’t motivated by a similar cultural undercurrent as those who get tattoos: in a world where the self is commoditized and suppressed, in the case of obvious scams it seems that willingly handing off all your resources is a way of annihilating the last of one’s individual materiality, erasing the anchors to a staid, settled being and negating all you were before and making a last desperate grab for all you thought you could’ve been but were not and now never will be in an attempt at glorious resurrection. Tattoos are similar in that they are a way to paint over some past self and instantiate a new one.
It’s suicide by deception — both by the artifice of the scammer but also by the self-deception that must occur to allow such authorized self-destruction to proceed in the name of misguided but still-solipsistic charity. And as with tattoos, the person being scammed feels like this is who they were meant to become. But there is in fact no metamorphosis from a chrysalis-bound pupa of a human to some other, better, entity on the other side; in both cases there is only the self scoured, discarded, with only a husk of depersonalized façade retained.
The scammed and the tattoo victim emerge from their ordeal changed, different, lesser than they were before, both marked by trauma but not improved. The self they discarded grabs at their ankles from the grave, and with no new substantive individuality emergent in this nouveau faux-personage, this unformed psyche is pulled beneath the loamy soil, the person that once was subsumed in the chthonian realm they were not inevitably doomed to inhabit but chose de facto by belief in a rebirth that was never to be realized. Both new and old selves are disintegrated, therefore, leaving only void.
I think I finally understand content warnings now. They aren’t effective at what they’re actually supposed to do. Studies show that pretty clearly.
Therefore, why they exist is, like many human things, for the purpose of signaling. Content and trigger warnings are used to convey that you are courteous enough to be concerned with the viewer’s sensitivities about something. They also communicate that you are embedded enough in a particular culture to know what its triggers and concerns in fact are.
Thus, they are used both for courtesy and to express status (these two are always closely related) and make a lot more sense to me from that sociological angle.
Trump’s or Harris’s chance of winning the presidency is 100% or 0%. The percentage that you’re actually measuring in a one-off contest that is not repeatable is the confidence in your model. So if you say, “Trump has a 55% chance of winning,” you’re really making a claim that you think your model has a 55% chance of being correct in that direction. These are two different things!
Yes, I know it’s pedantic, but in a single unique event what you’re confident about and what your actual claim is matters.
For most people, the internet was a mistake. And smartphones were a huge mistake. Not for all — but for most. But absent a nuclear war, there is no going back, no returning to what was extant before. We must adapt and make the best of the mess.
The internet should’ve remained as it was back in 1999-2001 or so. Smart techie type people only, with very little spillover into the wider world. No dating apps and not overrun by ads and large corporations. Smartphones should probably not exist at all. Too cognitively hazardous.
Just because a defined (and definable) series of events led to an action, does not mean that free will was not exercised or not present. It also doesn’t mean that free will was present. In this universe at the macro level at least, it tends to be causative agents all the way back. That says nothing about free will, but rather that time exists.
I believe this all stems from is a problem with our definition and understanding of “free will,” rather than telling us anything about will qua will at all, free or otherwise. The common definition of “free will” is “can do anything at any time.” But not even Superman1 can do that. For all his power, he is still constrained by his physical location, his past decisions, his still-limited attention span, the fact that he does not possess infinite intelligence, or that he might get tangled in his cape, etc.
There is no complete definition of free will, but the colloquial understanding of that it is just some ill-defined ability to make any decision or to take any action at any time seems to be more limiting than the alternative to me. I don’t have a complete answer, either, though I am quite sure the colloquial understanding of this all is very wrong. If I had to attempt to pin myself down on this intellectually, I’d say that I am Compatibilist, though I don’t quite hew to any of the existing Compatibilist positions. I have my own thing going there. But it’d take far too long to write about and would in fact be quite a bit more involved than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on that topic itself.
So, another time then.
If god were verified real, the prime project of humanity should then be to engage in a billions-year-long project to kill it/him/her.
Even meaningless questions and apparently-worthless paths can lead you to the right answers, as even the worst approach is constrained by reality into the shape of the possible. This is not ideal, but as in optimization and modeling the best method is often not known — so a pseudo-random reset often provides some unexpected benefit.
Exploration1 is key.
Most people seem to be running repetitive and pointless optimization exercises only where the streetlight glow illuminates. My goal is to undertake optimization exercises in the formless void of the space of possible minds and the permutations of sentient existences thereby realized1.