133: The First Steps to the Holodeck

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Novan Leon:

I'm not sure what you're asking. I wouldn't give a kid things to produce self-discipline, I would simply require that he show self-control for the things that are potentially harmful, like no sleep, shirking school work, etc. This is how you teach responsbility (ie. self-discipline) and good judgement.

But what about things that *aren't* harmful, like a bike or a car or a space shuttle? Where's the line? You say 'indulging a desire only makes it grow'. Well, where's the line? Is a bike okay but a car is an 'indulgence'? And if so, why?

I'm losing you. What exactly are you asking me again?

If you're obsessed with buying things, you have to draw a line at some point, the sooner the better. Where you draw that line is up to you.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

A physical act of AFFECTION. The child needs the affection, not necessarily the physical wrapping of the arms around him.

Stuffed animals don't wrap their arms around you, yet kids get a lot of positive benefits from being able to hug teddy bears.

That's because the child loves the animal. Giving affection is just as important as recieving it in many cases.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

I've never heard of such a thing, but if hypothetically someone was obsessed with self-control, this itself would be a lack of self-control, since they're unable or unwilling to control thier obsession.

This is the point I'm trying to get at--when you use the word 'self-control' you're actually talking about two things: control over self AND a sense of balance and proportion.

No. A sense of balance and proportion is good judgement. Self-control is being able to discipline yourself to meet the requirements that you set on yourself. If someone is a smoking addict, knows the negative effects, and doesn't care, there's no need for him to exercise self-control even though his judgement is sound.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
How can someone without truly good self-esteem not 'care what happens'?

People who love to eat fatty foods and choose to do so even though they know it can lead to heart disease? There are so many examples of this... I won't begin to list them all here.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Besides, how does someone with 'good judgment' "not realize the effects that occur"? That...doesn't make any sense.

Because they've never experienced it before? Because they were never educated?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Well, I can't speak for you, but didn't your self-esteem begin to recover the moment you made the decision to get off your lazy butt and make a change? I'm sure you felt great when your physical surroundings began to improve, but I'd be willing to bet that your self-esteem began to recover as soon as you commited yourself to getting your act together, not the moment you bought your first flat-screen TV.

I *never* committed myself to getting my act together. As my physical surroundings improved and I felt empowered I just naturally became ridiculously productive. No commitment necessary.

So, it happend in this order:
1. you were lazy with low self-esteem
2. your physical surroundings improved (magically? how?)
3. you naturally became a hard worker (why?)

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Point being, exercising self-control in order to reach a goal is ALWAYS satisfying regardless of the monetary (ie. improving of physical surroundings) benefit.

I totally disagree. I've reached goals through hard work and they have been totally unsatisfying.

I'm sorry, by 'satisfying' I mean to your 'self-esteem'. So you've reached goals through hard work and it resulted in hurting your self-esteem?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

I think the best way for you or I to prove our theory is to make a falsifiable prediction and see how it fills out. I predict that as America's prosperity continues to increase and physical conditions continue to improve, teen suicide, obesity, psychological problems and crime will continue to increase, population growth already taken into account. This is due to a growth in self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline.

Okay--let's take women's orgasms. Technology has made it possible for women to have more regular, more frequent, stronger, and more varied orgasms. Has 'indulging that appetite' stoked it? Is the demographic of women who own sex toys doing worse than the demographic that doesn't?

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly knowledgable in this area but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy generally have a lower self-esteem and less overall satisfaction (in spite of the increased physical pleasure) than a woman who's in a relationship with a human being.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Self-control has already become stereotyped as 'uncool' among the more immature segment of our culture. The Holodeck would accelerate this entire process by an incredible amount.

As one would expect. However, I say what makes them immature is not that they have stereotyped self-control as 'uncool', it's that they've done nothing to offer a better alternative.

I am. :-D

Ok, so other than biting the bullet and forcing myself to eat better/eat less/and exercise more, what's your alternative solution to my growing obesity?

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Oh, and we can leave out obesity as an indicator of anything but a public health problem. The idea that any society-wide problem with obesity is a moral failing, OR that America's prosperity has anything to do with the problem is a bunch of horsesh*t. (
(note: the Cabinet failing to tackle obesity link is broken.)

You're seriously going to tell me that:

"self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline."

is the problem when the friggin' FRENCH are in better shape than the Germans?

I'm sorry, I lost your train of thought.

You seem to think that because X causes Y, Y*2 equals X*2, when it's possible that Y can also be caused by A, B, C and D just as well. The French could be in better shape than the Germans because of diet, genetics or many other things. I'll be kind and assume you realize this, so I'll just have to state that I'm not sure what the point of your question was.

You know, I'd be really interested to hear what anyone else reading this debate happens to think. How do you think society would react to the invention of a Holodeck, that is, a virtually unlimited supply of anything at our disposal. Would you side more with Cheese_Pavilion's point of view or mine?

A few more posts maybe but I'm about done with this topic. It feels like we're going in circles.

Novan Leon:

I'm losing you. What exactly are you asking me again?

If indulging appetites only stokes their flames, according to that logic, you shouldn't give a kid a bike OR a car if they want it.

What I'm trying to show is that if you truly subscribe to the idea that indulging a desire only leads to it growing, following that to its logical conclusion means living the life of a monk. You may think you're advocating balance, but you're actually advocating asceticism.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Stuffed animals don't wrap their arms around you, yet kids get a lot of positive benefits from being able to hug teddy bears.

That's because the child loves the animal. Giving affection is just as important as recieving it in many cases.

Giving *physical* affection is important. If giving affection was equally important whether you 'indulged' the appetite for touch or not, then talking to the stuffed animal would always be as effective as actually embracing it.

No. A sense of balance and proportion is good judgement. Self-control is being able to discipline yourself to meet the requirements that you set on yourself.

That's what I keep saying--where self-control leads depends on where those requirements have been set. What if a person has set the requirement for work or exercise at an unhealthy level? There we have a person who has self-control AND is ruining their life.

Self-discipline and self-control are tools, just like fire and knives. It's who we are that determines how we use our tools, not the tools themselves.

If someone is a smoking addict, knows the negative effects, and doesn't care, there's no need for him to exercise self-control even though his judgement is sound.

You're not taking the thought far enough here--there's also no *benefit to him*, not just no "need for him": like I've said from the beginning, self-control is not the panacea you're making it out to be.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
How can someone without truly good self-esteem not 'care what happens'?

People who love to eat fatty foods and choose to do so even though they know it can lead to heart disease? There are so many examples of this... I won't begin to list them all here.

List all you want--you still haven't listed a person that necessarily has truly good self-esteem. Just people with medical knowledge.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Besides, how does someone with 'good judgment' "not realize the effects that occur"? That...doesn't make any sense.

Because they've never experienced it before? Because they were never educated?

Well then they don't have 'good' judgment, do they?

So, it happend in this order:
1. you were lazy with low self-esteem
2. your physical surroundings improved (magically? how?)
3. you naturally became a hard worker (why?)

2. A little bit of luck, a little bit of choosing to put myself in a better situation.
3. I felt empowered and a sense of security.

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly knowledgable in this area but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy generally have a lower self-esteem and less overall satisfaction (in spite of the increased physical pleasure) than a woman who's in a relationship with a human being.

I never said I was talking about "women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy." Don't try and stack the deck just to make your arguments look stronger. Maybe you made an honest mistake here, but, now that I've drawn you attention to it, you know that there are women "in a relationship with a human being" who also have access to sex toys.

Ok, so other than biting the bullet and forcing myself to eat better/eat less/and exercise more, what's your alternative solution to my growing obesity?

Get healthier bacteria in your gut--check those links about the disease theory of obesity.

The French could be in better shape than the Germans because of diet, genetics or many other things. I'll be kind and assume you realize this, so I'll just have to state that I'm not sure what the point of your question was.

I think you lost my train of thought like Nixon lost minutes on those tapes or Ollie North lost his ability to recall ;-D

edit: You don't have to be kind, you just have to be fair. If you're saying that the difference between the French and the Germans could be "many other things" then you shouldn't be going on about stuff like:

"I predict that as America's prosperity continues to increase and physical conditions continue to improve, teen suicide, obesity, psychological problems and crime will continue to increase, population growth already taken into account. This is due to a growth in self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline."

unless you've eliminated, as you said, "A, B, C and D" whenever you offer evidence in support of your own "predictions" (technically they'd be retrodictions, but you know what I mean)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander :-D

A few more posts maybe but I'm about done with this topic. It feels like we're going in circles.

We can end with your next response if you want. I think I've made my points about as well as I'm going to make them.

It's interesting, but ultimately... holodecks won't cater to our every desire. All the satisfaction gained would begin and end within it; there will always be the real world to contend with... and guess what? The real world doesn't like you very much. ;-)

Cheeze, do you honestly believe that a holodeck would satisfy people's cravings, leading to a near-utopian society?

Echolocating:

Cheeze, do you honestly believe that a holodeck would satisfy people's cravings, leading to a near-utopian society?

After talking with Novan Leon, I think it would be better to say that it would short-circuit our cravings more than satisfy them. I think that's closer to my point.

Think of this aspect of it--horny young people. Guys who like girls--most of them--never get to play with girls enough when they're 18-25. Imagine if they had a Holodeck where they could explore sexuality to their heart's content. Imagine how much nicer of a world it would be if guys that age weren't walking around horny all the time.

Now, girls who like guys, they can have all the sex they want, the problem is, they're always wondering if it'll go wrong, if they go too far will the guy stop, etc. Imagine if every woman you messed around with had already fully explored her sexuality in a positive environment because she had access to sex without the danger to her reputation or her body? I think that would be a great world.

I totally agree with you that it won't provide *every* satisfaction; what I'm saying is that when we go looking for those satisfactions out in the real world, I think we'll be much more satisfied people. If a guy tells a girl he likes her, it'll be because he *really* likes her, because he's got five supermodels back in the Holodeck he could be banging. I think it will make all our interactions in the real world much more pure because all we have to gain from them will be stuff like love and friendship.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Echolocating:

Cheeze, do you honestly believe that a holodeck would satisfy people's cravings, leading to a near-utopian society?

After talking with Novan Leon, I think it would be better to say that it would short-circuit our cravings more than satisfy them. I think that's closer to my point.

Think of this aspect of it--horny young people. Guys who like girls--most of them--never get to play with girls enough when they're 18-25. Imagine if they had a Holodeck where they could explore sexuality to their heart's content. Imagine how much nicer of a world it would be if guys that age weren't walking around horny all the time.

With little boundaries. And when said guy would return to real life, depending on the state of society and values, he may quickly return into his cube and die there, fiddling with holovaginas.

The real stuff is much more interesting. There are limits, and from these limits come the appetite.
That's the point of sexy clothes. It's a game of tease.

If one wants to live a life of tyrant in his holospace, then so be it, but he'll be limited to this very sad confined space.

Arbre:

With little boundaries.

Why wouldn't they have boundaries? Just because they're used to getting their way? That's silly--in real life people who get their way a lot aren't necessarily any more likely to have little in the way of boundaries.

And when said guy would return to real life, depending on the state of society and values, he may quickly return into his cube and die there, fiddling with holovaginas.

Dude, if someone is capable of fiddling their life away with holovaginas, chances are they weren't going to do anything special with their lives anyway. Not really a loss in my book.

There are limits, and from these limits come the appetite.
That's the point of sexy clothes. It's a game of tease.

See, I've never found sexy clothes sexy because they were a tease. What makes sexy clothes sexy is the same thing that makes fashionable clothes fashionable--they look good on a person.

Maybe I'm just built different everyone else--my appetites are my appetites, and limits and tease have nothing to do with them. I've always found it...immature to be turned on by the tease. I don't mean any disrespect by that, I just never understood the allure of forbidden fruit, be it nekkidness, sex, alcohol, anything like that.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Why wouldn't they have boundaries? Just because they're used to getting their way? That's silly--in real life people who get their way a lot aren't necessarily any more likely to have little in the way of boundaries.

It's not silly. The decisions you make in the holodeck (which you claim would short-circuit real world cravings) don't have real world consequences. Less boundaries, Cheeze.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Maybe I'm just built different everyone else--my appetites are my appetites, and limits and tease have nothing to do with them. I've always found it...immature to be turned on by the tease. I don't mean any disrespect by that, I just never understood the allure of forbidden fruit, be it nekkidness, sex, alcohol, anything like that.

I think you need to smoke a big fatty, dude. ;-)

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

With little boundaries.

Why wouldn't they have boundaries? Just because they're used to getting their way? That's silly--in real life people who get their way a lot aren't necessarily any more likely to have little in the way of boundaries.

Silly?
It's the holodeck. You want, you get.
You can be God in your holodeck.

And when said guy would return to real life, depending on the state of society and values, he may quickly return into his cube and die there, fiddling with holovaginas.

Dude, if someone is capable of fiddling their life away with holovaginas, chances are they weren't going to do anything special with their lives anyway. Not really a loss in my book.

I don't see why you seem to rise a problem here.

There are limits, and from these limits come the appetite.
That's the point of sexy clothes. It's a game of tease.

See, I've never found sexy clothes sexy because they were a tease. What makes sexy clothes sexy is the same thing that makes fashionable clothes fashionable--they look good on a person.

There still is a difference between plain sexy clothes (which can look good as well), and clothes which, well, just look good. You can look good in ceremonial clothes which don't allow for much sexual teasing.

Now, to get to the point, the message of a bum squeezed in a tight jean or miniskirt is rather clear. Especially in the case of the skirt, you know the sinful fruit is just there, but hehe, you can only see a sample (top of the legs), but that's just a trial version.
It's a game of hypocrisy about toeing the line. It's "hello, I'm underneath those clothes, but you're not allowed to see me in full".
In other words, a tease.
There's nothing immature here. It's sexual implication by playing with the values and restrictions of a society.

Echolocating:

It's not silly. The decisions you make in the holodeck (which you claim would short-circuit real world cravings) don't have real world consequences. Less boundaries, Cheeze.

Again--I say that logic is faulty. Boundaries for stuff like that comes from the respect one has developed for other humans, not from being rejected. If anything I think being rejected, not being able to get one's needs met breeds low, vile people who look on boundaries as what is holding them back, and therefore something to be crossed.

I think a lot of the problems with our world can be traced to the attitude that boundaries=consequences. That's why there's so much date rape and rape of people who are intoxicated or imprisoned. Boundaries constructed on consequences fall apart in consequence-free situations like the ones I'm talking about that exist right now and have nothing to do with a Holodeck. Boundaries should be a product of a sense of respect for others. I fail to see how consequences are a part of that.

I think you need to smoke a big fatty, dude. ;-)

Heh, I never said I don't enjoy fruit, I just never found it any sweeter for the fact that it was forbidden. Big difference.

Arbre:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

With little boundaries.

Why wouldn't they have boundaries? Just because they're used to getting their way? That's silly--in real life people who get their way a lot aren't necessarily any more likely to have little in the way of boundaries.

It's the holodeck. You want, you get.
You can be God in your holodeck.

Maybe we've got our signals crossed--what's the problem with there being "little boundaries" on a Holodeck? We have "little boundaries" in our imaginations, so, what's the big deal?

Now, to get to the point, the message of a bum squeezed in a tight jean or miniskirt is rather clear. Especially in the case of the skirt, you know the sinful fruit is just there, but hehe, you can only see a sample (top of the legs), but that's just a trial version.
It's a game of hypocrisy about toeing the line. It's "hello, I'm underneath those clothes, but you're not allowed to see me in full".
In other words, a tease.
There's nothing immature here. It's sexual implication by playing with the values and restrictions of a society.

Yeah, see, I've never been much into tight jeans or miniskirts or not getting to see what I want in full if that's what I want. I find sexy clothes are sexy because they *look* sexy, not because they hide anything. Sorry, but, I still find the 'forbidden fruit' attitude towards sex a defect of living in a society as messed up about sex as ours is.

I'll take a flattering-but-loose pair of jeans and a cute skirt that comes down to the knees over what you're talking about any day.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Maybe we've got our signals crossed--what's the problem with there being "little boundaries" on a Holodeck? We have "little boundaries" in our imaginations, so, what's the big deal?

No, my point was that when enjoying the near zero boundaries of the holodeck, I may develop an addiction and find the real word too difficult and complex.
Now, I don't care much, because initially this topic only made sense when talking about near future volumetric imaging tech, not Star Trek BS.

Yeah, see, I've never been much into tight jeans or miniskirts or not getting to see what I want in full if that's what I want. I find sexy clothes are sexy because they *look* sexy, not because they hide anything. Sorry, but, I still find the 'forbidden fruit' attitude towards sex a defect of living in a society as messed up about sex as ours is.

I'll take a flattering-but-loose pair of jeans and a cute skirt that comes down to the knees over what you're talking about any day.

Well... ok. Then...

image

;)

Arbre:

No, my point was that when enjoying the near zero boundaries of the holodeck, I may develop an addiction and find the real word too difficult and complex.

People still climb mountains even though you can take a helicopter to the top. Why would a Holodeck be any different?

Yeah, see, I've never been much into tight jeans or miniskirts or not getting to see what I want in full if that's what I want. I find sexy clothes are sexy because they *look* sexy, not because they hide anything. Sorry, but, I still find the 'forbidden fruit' attitude towards sex a defect of living in a society as messed up about sex as ours is.

I'll take a flattering-but-loose pair of jeans and a cute skirt that comes down to the knees over what you're talking about any day.

Well... ok. Then...

;)

Heh--certainly nothing 'cute or flattering' about that piece of apparel.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

No, my point was that when enjoying the near zero boundaries of the holodeck, I may develop an addiction and find the real word too difficult and complex.

People still climb mountains even though you can take a helicopter to the top. Why would a Holodeck be any different?

This is not an inappropriate example.
These people like the challenge of the task, which is irrelevant to your point a couple of posts above.
My point was precisely aimed at those hypothetical people who'd find refuge in the holodeck to cater to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers.
On the other hand, if people prefer real life challenges, then there's much less point going into the holodeck. Especially as they know it's fake.
I believe there would still be a pride in obtaining the *real stuff*.

Echolocating:
The decisions you make in the holodeck (which you claim would short-circuit real world cravings) don't have real world consequences. Less boundaries, Cheeze.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Again--I say that logic is faulty. Boundaries for stuff like that comes from the respect one has developed for other humans, not from being rejected. If anything I think being rejected, not being able to get one's needs met breeds low, vile people who look on boundaries as what is holding them back, and therefore something to be crossed.

I'm saying a virtual world has less boundaries when compared to the real world. Yet, you say my logic is faulty. I don't know why you're arguing that point, unless you're giving the term "boundaries" a different meaning in this context. What are you talking about?

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I think a lot of the problems with our world can be traced to the attitude that boundaries=consequences. That's why there's so much date rape and rape of people who are intoxicated or imprisoned. Boundaries constructed on consequences fall apart in consequence-free situations like the ones I'm talking about that exist right now and have nothing to do with a Holodeck. Boundaries should be a product of a sense of respect for others. I fail to see how consequences are a part of that.

Um, boundaries do exist because of consequences... or even perceived consequences. When we cross those boundaries, we are met with consequences... or is that logic faulty as well?

-----

Back to the idea you brought up earlier, Cheeze, about giving people everything they could ever want would somehow benefit society... there are documented cases of this in our world today; they're called spoiled, rich brats. ;-)

Echolocating:

I'm saying a virtual world has less boundaries when compared to the real world.

Right, I thought you and Arbre were saying something different. I just...don't see the importance of pointing that out. A world with ships has less boundaries on a planet with oceans like ours--what's the point?

When we cross those boundaries, we are met with consequences... or is that logic faulty as well?

You're right--it would be more accurate of me to say 'externally imposed' consequences. Still, though, I think there's a world of difference between not harming someone because you respect other humans, and not harming someone because you'll go to jail if you do.

Back to the idea you brought up earlier, Cheeze, about giving people everything they could ever want would somehow benefit society... there are documented cases of this in our world today; they're called spoiled, rich brats.

No, those are documented cases of people getting what they want as long as they are willing to throw tantrums that we call brats.

Whether they are rich or poor is just a matter of the resources of the parents who reward that bratty behavior.

This is my point--everyone disagreeing with me saying 'but human nature...' has arguments that are full of these kinds of huge mistakes about human nature. If you think 'spoiled brats' are produced by *how* much you give a kid and not *why* you give it to them, well, I can see why you disagree with me: you've got some fundamental mistakes about human nature at the root of your thinking.

skyfire_freckles:

People who are messed up need plenty of the good stuff; love, understanding, support; if they are to heal, and none of the not-so-good, addictive stuff. But which would they create for themselves if they had access to a holodeck?

How can stuff be 'not-so-good' or 'addictive' in a Holodeck? How do you get AIDS or a physical addiction from a Holodeck?

I think a Holodeck is really going to force us to re-evaluate what is an 'addiction' and what isn't.

Arbre:

My point was precisely aimed at those hypothetical people who'd find refuge in the holodeck to cater to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers.
On the other hand, if people prefer real life challenges, then there's much less point going into the holodeck. Especially as they know it's fake.
I believe there would still be a pride in obtaining the *real stuff*.

But there's a problem with your logic there--if a person can't satisfy a desire in real life, how will a Holodeck effect whether or not they get the pride that comes from obtaining "the *real stuff*"?

Seriously--what's the problem for people having a device that 'caters' "to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers"? If they weren't going to accomplish that stuff in real life, what's the issue with letting them accomplish it on a Holodeck?

What's wrong with giving "refuge" to people who have a reason to be 'refugees'?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

My point was precisely aimed at those hypothetical people who'd find refuge in the holodeck to cater to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers.
On the other hand, if people prefer real life challenges, then there's much less point going into the holodeck. Especially as they know it's fake.
I believe there would still be a pride in obtaining the *real stuff*.

But there's a problem with your logic there--if a person can't satisfy a desire in real life, how will a Holodeck effect whether or not they get the pride that comes from obtaining "the *real stuff*"?
Seriously--what's the problem for people having a device that 'caters' "to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers"? If they weren't going to accomplish that stuff in real life, what's the issue with letting them accomplish it on a Holodeck?

What's wrong with giving "refuge" to people who have a reason to be 'refugees'?

It depends pretty much on the reasons you go inside. You probably only saw the positive ones, while after citing good reasons to play with holorooms (the possible tech), I tackled the question of the holodeck from a more negative point of view, which is about psychological disorder and addiction.
Mainly because the point you raised was about people spending most of their time, say life, inside a holodeck.

The thing is, not everybody would carve for real life challenges, and they wouldn't agree on the nature and difficulty of said challenges.
Some will look for very hard targets, other for easier ones. Some won't bother.

It's precisely those who will find little interest in the real life challenge, and even, maybe, mock them, making an excuse as the human intelligence was the tool which would one day bring us the holodeck, who would willfully get inside the holodeck.

There are plenty of reasons, now, why one would get into a holodeck. Some of these reasons might be similar to yours, others drastically different than yours.

- Liberty. A limitless exploration. Depending on the nature of your goal, the moral values you're ready to transgress, your activity inside the holodeck could be considered fun, enjoyable, peaceful, near meditative, or violent, deviant, perverted, etc. That said, you don't really require the holodeck, you could live like anyone outside of it, but either by curiosity or because psychologically, you don't feel strong enough to certain things in real life, you go into the holodeck.

- Physical handicap. You want to do something which your body forbids (including brain related limitations). The holodeck may become a solution.

- Homo-negation. Being tired of the human nature. A complete different mindset, which looks towards freeing one's mind from the flesh as much as possible. A real evolution, good or bad I can't tell, in the way a human would think. Frankly, that's more SF stuff and Kusanagi style mindset.

- Addiction. In a holodeck where you can get anything you want, some people might get intoxicated and loose their lives inside an environment where everything is easy, new, extremely dynamic and easily shaped. Whatever the initial reasons were, at this point, you're returning into the holodeck because you have simply developped an addiction to the system.
Look at the amount of people turning into vegetables and getting stuck playing hours of FPSes or inside MMOs.

Echolocating:
I'm saying a virtual world has less boundaries when compared to the real world.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Right, I thought you and Arbre were saying something different. I just...don't see the importance of pointing that out. A world with ships has less boundaries on a planet with oceans like ours--what's the point?

The point was not initially mine; it was Arbre's and I was merely agreeing with him after you said it was a silly notion (which obviously it wasn't). So you might want to ask him if you want that specific answer.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I think there's a world of difference between not harming someone because you respect other humans, and not harming someone because you'll go to jail if you do.

I think you're completely right on that one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say jail doesn't deter anything. It basically comes down to morality... which was why I supported the "less boundaries" comment from before. Holodecks would allow us to explore very immersive, alternative moralities.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
This is my point--everyone disagreeing with me saying 'but human nature...' has arguments that are full of these kinds of huge mistakes about human nature. If you think 'spoiled brats' are produced by *how* much you give a kid and not *why* you give it to them, well, I can see why you disagree with me: you've got some fundamental mistakes about human nature at the root of your thinking.

I don't know if I have fundamental mistakes in my thinking about human nature or not. In the scenario of someone having everything they could want... are you so sure that we can actually be satisfied and not want anymore? The grass is always greener, I think.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Novan Leon:

I'm losing you. What exactly are you asking me again?

If indulging appetites only stokes their flames, according to that logic, you shouldn't give a kid a bike OR a car if they want it.

What I'm trying to show is that if you truly subscribe to the idea that indulging a desire only leads to it growing, following that to its logical conclusion means living the life of a monk. You may think you're advocating balance, but you're actually advocating asceticism.

But we're not talking about a child with unlimited resources (or ANY resources at all for that matter) and no self-control. As long as there are boundaries set, monetary or otherwise, giving a kid a bike shouldn't cause any harm.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Stuffed animals don't wrap their arms around you, yet kids get a lot of positive benefits from being able to hug teddy bears.

That's because the child loves the animal. Giving affection is just as important as recieving it in many cases.

Giving *physical* affection is important. If giving affection was equally important whether you 'indulged' the appetite for touch or not, then talking to the stuffed animal would always be as effective as actually embracing it.

Children DO talk to thier stuffed animals. Physical touch DOES enhance the act of giving affection, I never said it didn't, but the affection is the prerequisite, the physical touch is the afterthought. I think we can agree that physical touch does add a lot to the human experience.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Cheese_Pavilion:
How can someone without truly good self-esteem not 'care what happens'?

People who love to eat fatty foods and choose to do so even though they know it can lead to heart disease? There are so many examples of this... I won't begin to list them all here.

List all you want--you still haven't listed a person that necessarily has truly good self-esteem. Just people with medical knowledge.

Well I have no way to prove to you whether someone has good self-esteem or not, so this point is dead.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Besides, how does someone with 'good judgment' "not realize the effects that occur"? That...doesn't make any sense.

Because they've never experienced it before? Because they were never educated?

Well then they don't have 'good' judgment, do they?

I think your confusing knowledge with judgement. I can make a good judgement with poor knowledge and result in a poor outcome. That's why education and experience are so important. Maybe "judgement" is the wrong word but I can't think of an alternative at the moment.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly knowledgable in this area but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy generally have a lower self-esteem and less overall satisfaction (in spite of the increased physical pleasure) than a woman who's in a relationship with a human being.

I never said I was talking about "women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy." Don't try and stack the deck just to make your arguments look stronger. Maybe you made an honest mistake here, but, now that I've drawn you attention to it, you know that there are women "in a relationship with a human being" who also have access to sex toys.

If we're talking about women who are in a relationship who also have toys, how does your point carry any weight? Having the toy alone wouldn't destroy a womans self-esteem, and I never claimed it would.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Ok, so other than biting the bullet and forcing myself to eat better/eat less/and exercise more, what's your alternative solution to my growing obesity?

Get healthier bacteria in your gut--check those links about the disease theory of obesity.

How do I get healthier bacteria in my gut? Your point loses all water unless you can show that the process to lose weight is effortless. Even if it just takes a little effort, it will require some self-control.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

The French could be in better shape than the Germans because of diet, genetics or many other things. I'll be kind and assume you realize this, so I'll just have to state that I'm not sure what the point of your question was.

I think you lost my train of thought like Nixon lost minutes on those tapes or Ollie North lost his ability to recall ;-D

No, your arguments just honestly don't make much sense to me. Our minds are just working on totally different wavelengths.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
edit: You don't have to be kind, you just have to be fair. If you're saying that the difference between the French and the Germans could be "many other things" then you shouldn't be going on about stuff like:

"I predict that as America's prosperity continues to increase and physical conditions continue to improve, teen suicide, obesity, psychological problems and crime will continue to increase, population growth already taken into account. This is due to a growth in self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline."

unless you've eliminated, as you said, "A, B, C and D" whenever you offer evidence in support of your own "predictions" (technically they'd be retrodictions, but you know what I mean)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander :-D

You can never take into account every variable when making a prediction, all you can do is make a broad enough of a prediction so that it should be impacted as little as possible by other variables. The fact that all these occurences are increasing (and I predict will continue to increase) while thier physical environment continues to improve is all I need to prove my point.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

A few more posts maybe but I'm about done with this topic. It feels like we're going in circles.

We can end with your next response if you want. I think I've made my points about as well as I'm going to make them.

Yeah. Feel free to respond but, for the most part, I've made my point.

Echolocating:
Holodecks would allow us to explore very immersive, alternative moralities.

"I thought the fact it was a virtual world would make the acts I engaged in less real, less impactful. I thought I could play in Sociolotron for a while and not be affected by what I'd done or was done to me. I was wrong."

We're already there.

I don't know if I have fundamental mistakes in my thinking about human nature or not. In the scenario of someone having everything they could want... are you so sure that we can actually be satisfied and not want anymore? The grass is always greener, I think.

If the grass is greener, and you have a Holodeck, just go where the grass is greener!

Arbre:

Look at the amount of people turning into vegetables and getting stuck playing hours of FPSes or inside MMOs.

And yet civilization shows no signs of collapsing.

Besides, I think people spend all those hours in those games because we no longer know our neighbors. Everyone makes like people are choosing the Holodeck/FPSes/MMOs over some supposed 'real life' that we all have. Fact is, most of us *don't* have a real life anymore with what work schedules and commutes and cross-country moves do to our lives.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Arbre:

Look at the amount of people turning into vegetables and getting stuck playing hours of FPSes or inside MMOs.

And yet civilization shows no signs of collapsing.

I claimed civilization collapse when?
I see arguments stretching for no real reason than you trying to win - not even make - a point.
I'm afraid I've said all I had to on this topic.

Echolocating:
It basically comes down to morality... which was why I supported the "less boundaries" comment from before. Holodecks would allow us to explore very immersive, alternative moralities.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
"I thought the fact it was a virtual world would make the acts I engaged in less real, less impactful. I thought I could play in Sociolotron for a while and not be affected by what I'd done or was done to me. I was wrong."

We're already there.

Possibly, but the main difference is that in a holodeck, even the people are artificial. In the Sociolotron, would Russ Pitts have been affected if Phil was simply an algorithm? I think the part that creeped Russ out was that is a was a real human being on the other end. Again, holodecks provide convincing environments with fewer boundaries... whatever that means. ;-)

Echolocating:

Possibly, but the main difference is that in a holodeck, even the people are artificial. In the Sociolotron, would Russ Pitts have been affected if Phil was simply an algorithm? I think the part that creeped Russ out was that is a was a real human being on the other end. Again, holodecks provide convincing environments with fewer boundaries... whatever that means. ;-)

In a sense then, maybe a Holodeck is an even less 'convincing environment' than something like Sociolotron from certain standpoints? Maybe the boundary of 'this is simply an algorithm and not a real human being on the other end' is more limiting a boundary than the ones a Holodeck (in single player campaign) would eliminate?

Echolocating:
Possibly, but the main difference is that in a holodeck, even the people are artificial. In the Sociolotron, would Russ Pitts have been affected if Phil was simply an algorithm? I think the part that creeped Russ out was that is a was a real human being on the other end. Again, holodecks provide convincing environments with fewer boundaries... whatever that means. ;-)

Cheeze_Pavilion:
In a sense then, maybe a Holodeck is an even less 'convincing environment' than something like Sociolotron from certain standpoints? Maybe the boundary of 'this is simply an algorithm and not a real human being on the other end' is more limiting a boundary than the ones a Holodeck (in single player campaign) would eliminate?

I've been using the term "boundary" to reflect the constraints (physical or self-imposed) that the real world offers as opposed to the virtual holodeck world. I don't really understand how you're defining boundary now... or why you're trying to possibly redefine it. Are you saying that the knowledge that this virtual character isn't real is an obstacle to being fully convinced?

I think the goal of a holodeck should be to suspend one's disbelief in a fully interactive, "seemingly real" environment; not trick them into thinking they are in the real world.

Echolocating:

I've been using the term "boundary" to reflect the constraints (physical or self-imposed) that the real world offers as opposed to the virtual holodeck world. I don't really understand how you're defining boundary now...

A constraint (virtual) that the Holodeck offers as opposed to the real world. Just saying that maybe the idea of boundaries doesn't all go one way.

Echolocating:
I've been using the term "boundary" to reflect the constraints (physical or self-imposed) that the real world offers as opposed to the virtual holodeck world. I don't really understand how you're defining boundary now...

Cheeze_Pavilion:
A constraint (virtual) that the Holodeck offers as opposed to the real world. Just saying that maybe the idea of boundaries doesn't all go one way.

So... in a holodeck, what are some examples of these boundaries you speak of? ..and what importance do they have on bettering our society?

Echolocating:

So... in a holodeck, what are some examples of these boundaries you speak of? ..and what importance do they have on bettering our society?

Umm...see comment 95?

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Umm...see comment 95?

Okay...

Cheeze_Pavilion:
In a sense then, maybe a Holodeck is an even less 'convincing environment' than something like Sociolotron from certain standpoints? Maybe the boundary of 'this is simply an algorithm and not a real human being on the other end' is more limiting a boundary than the ones a Holodeck (in single player campaign) would eliminate?

...I guess I just don't see why "knowing that something doesn't exist while in an environment that doesn't exist" is a crucial point to make.

Moving on...

-----

What would you do if you had a holodeck, Cheeze?

Echolocating:

What would you do if you had a holodeck, Cheeze?

Two chicks.

Two chicks at the same time.

I wonder... how would real women feel suddenly becoming a much less desirable commodity.

As someone with relatively low self esteem and problems relating to the 'real' world already, I'd say a holodeck is pretty dangerous.

But only in so far as it matters what happens in the 'real' world.

If you still need to work, still need food that the virtual environment cannot provide...
Still need to interact with the 'real' world, then this is going to be a pretty bad thing.

Even then, if it becomes widespread, it could threaten the species. But really, does that even matter? No species lasts forever, and going out of your way to ensure it does is futile.

Then again, I see little value in the 'real' world over a virtual one beyond the fact that it (currently) is a more effective illusion.

Reality is dull, irritating, and (to me), holds very little inherent meaning, so replacing it with a virtual world isn't likely to change much in that regard.

Of course, holodecks (compared to the alternative, matrix style brain interfacing) impose a specific limitation that most people probably don't consider:

By virtue of how a holodeck works, you can have (near) absolute control of your environment, but, you cannot change anything about yourself.

You cannot change your body in a holodeck. Or your mind. (at least, not in a direct sense).

Still, my opinion is no more than that. An opinion.

It's bad, only in so far as it matters what happens to the human race. And I don't think much of anything truly matters all that much in the grand scheme of things.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here