RoR: Forum

P M H,

I'm not sure that life is so binary - so 'yes' or 'no.' We have to see it this way to understand our ultimate value, and that it is optional, but in our day to day practice our choices are about a better life, about flourishing (or about moving in that direction).

In theory, pain can be left behind without any loss in motivation, because with high self-esteem one can move for ever-higher levels of excitement in a life that is flourishing. That is a very different proposition from the motivation to act in order to avoid pain (hurt, shame, fear, anger or saddness).

It almost seems like the issues of wet bits, and their form of mortality and decay, and the consciousness which must continually make choices that increase or decrease the level of self-esteem are different, but overlapping, playing fields. We are faced with choices that let us taste a great deal of flourishing here in our organic containers despite their time limitations. The silicone clone who no longer has the issues of disease, aging, decay and death must still negotiate those self-esteem choices that will make his inner-life a heaven or a hell.

Immortality would be most unwelcome for the fellow whose prime motivation is to escape the constant pain of low self-esteem.

Post 21

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 4:15pm

Choices that move us toward a better life, toward flourishing, are selfish choices designed to sustain our own lives, at least for rational people. The actions that increase our healthy self-esteem are choices that allow us to recognize that we are productive people, capable of "living" in Ayn Rand's sense of the word.

Try to think of a single action you could take that would improve your self esteem if you and everyone else were immortal. Try to couch the reason for valuing this action in Objectivist terms. I can't do it, since everything in Objectivist morality and ethics boils down to making life-affirming choices.

That's my understanding, anyway, of healthy esteem for oneself from an objectivist standpoint. I'm recklessly throwing my layman's understanding of the subject on the table in full knowledge that, as a former psychiatric professional, you have a high degree of expertise on the subject and may contradict me at any moment.

Without the need to "live", there would be no self esteem to be gained from being capable of doing so. Life, which is now our ultimate value, would have no value at all. All of our ethics, which boil down to "you shouldn't take life from another person" would be moot since that life couldn't be taken anyway. We conclude that we shouldn't live for other people, but the premises underlying that conclusion disappear with our ability to lose life.

This is, of course, a purely speculative conversation that relies on the question "what if reality was different than it is." Those types of conversations are often derided here, for good reason. In this case, however, I think it's a fun and even worthwhile exercise since it deals with a hypothetical future that is becoming closer and closer to a real possibility and also because it helps us (or me, anyway) to focus on what makes Objectivist philosophy work when I take away pieces of the reality on which it rests.

To bring this back to the subject matter of the OP, I think that any "Matrix" would have to be imperfect to the point that the participants still perceived some risk to themselves. There would have to be some struggle, some sense of accomplishment. You can't win in life if there is no possibility of losing. I think that there is a very real possibility that by the time we really have the ability to put people into a matrix experience, we will also have the ability to make real life pleasurable and risk free to the same extent that a viable matrix existence would be. We need a certain amount of risk and struggle to remain human.

Post 22

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 6:23pm

Try to think of a single action you could take that would improve your self esteem if you and everyone else were immortal. Try to couch the reason for valuing this action in Objectivist terms. I can't do it, since everything in Objectivist morality and ethics boils down to making life-affirming choices.

We all have different issues that on occasion encourage us to engage in repression, rationalization, denial or avoidance of some form or another. For example, maybe a person is a touch more sensitive about something in their appearance than they should be. When someone, or something, reflects this to the person - at that moment the person is presented with a choice point. They can engage in some form of avoidance or they can experience a moment of pain which comes with more deeply accepting this aspect of their appearance. If they engage in self-acceptance, after the moment of pain, there comes an increase in self-esteem.

Self-esteem is an automatic, and unavoidable effect of certain conscious processes. When we engage in various forms of neurotic defensiveness (repression, denial, etc.) there will be an automatic, and unavoidable decrease in our level of self-esteem. When we use our consciousness in those ways that are healthy (self-acceptance, self-responsibility, living consciously, acting with integrity, being assertive, etc.) our self-esteem will automatically increase. This constant up and down is additive and over the course of time determines the extent to which we will have this background feeling of being competent to handle what the world presents us with and feeling that happiness and being lovable is appropriate to us.

When this background experience - self-esteem - runs high enough it is very empowering - like a high octane fuel. When the feeling is very low it becomes a strong motivation to engage in neurotic defensiveness. It is the reward for using your consciousness in the proper fashion, or the punishment for using it in the wrong way.

I think this makes it clear that self-esteem is a by-product of the way a person uses their consciousness and that I don't think it would be directly effected by becoming immortal. In fact, without mortality, self-esteem would be more important as a goal, and for the reward it can constitute.

I wouldn't put self-esteem into the category of Objectivist philosophy, but rather into psychology, which rests upon the philosophy of psychology which in turn rests upon philosophy.

Talking about the Matrix, you said:

There would have to be some struggle, some sense of accomplishment. You can't win in life if there is no possibility of losing. ... We need a certain amount of risk and struggle to remain human.

I agree with this. But I don't think it will ever be possible to eliminate risk. We just change the kinds of things at risk. To make a choice is to risk being wrong, and we choose everything - including the person we are.
---------------

Just a note: I'm not a "former psychiatric professional" - that is a license only granted to people who have a medical degree. My degree was a Master's level degree in clinical psychology.

Post 23

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 11:00am

Steve,

In fact, without mortality, self-esteem would be more important as a goal, and for the reward it can constitute.

I wanted to respond like I was on some kind of an armored white horse, with a shiny shield and a blazing battle sword:

But Rand said this. But Rand said that. But Rand said that indestructible (immortal) robots couldn't value. Yada, yada, yada. Prepare yourself for ideological battle, adversary!

But then you went ahead and said the quote above, and the thunder of my intended thunderstorm evaporated. What a neat insight! The idea that, if you can't die, then you are going to have to be really very careful and really very concerned about your self-esteem! Why, just imagine living forever with painfully-low self-esteem!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

:-)

Ed

p.s. Of course the rebuttal from stock existentialists would be: Since you have eternity to eventually come around back to a life of integrity -- after, say, 10,000 years of acting immorally and in a manner that lowers your self-esteem -- then you could simply "undo" any mistakes or any sustained "taking of liberties" by simply swinging the other way for another 10 millennia or so. They would say no character violation (a "fueled character flaw") matters, because you have all the time in the world to undo it. There's a good rebuttal to this train of thought, but I don't have time right now to put it together ...

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/16, 11:11am)

Post 24

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 11:56am

Ed,

In one sense this argument is false... the argument that we achieve immortality and now because of that we stand in a different relationship to morality. The assumption that we achieve immortality isn't like some magical switch that once thrown means even a complete idiot who sets himself on fire will be able to be regenerated. Either it is a false argument with an over-the-top science fiction aspect where everyone is some kind of superhero that is impervious to anything, or the scenario is one of achieving immortality within reasonable medical limits and has to include some significant degree of evolution - not just in technology, but also in culture. And there are other problems with how this argument is framed.

I think that those who got on a path to declining self-esteem and stayed on that path too long would be the people who tested the limits of their immortality... because they would want to kill themselves rather than go on living with the very high levels of self-hatred and panic-level fear. It might not be possible to come back from going too far down that road to ultra-low self-esteem for too long. For them, immortality might be a sentence to live forever in a body that is hooked up with a consciousness that can only experience intense fear and self-loathing - a kind of ugly, screaming dementia that provides no foothold for reversal.

This whole subject area is subject to confusion. On the metaphysical and epistemological basis we have life for man qua man as the basis for moral choice which, given our nature, requires reason. But immortality is really a reference to medical technology. That gives us no guarantee of flourishing, of being happy forever. To me, our move in the direction towards immortality is the expression of technology and it gives us more options for acting. That's a good thing, but it doesn't change the need to choose, and that wrong choices can result in failure and pain and loss.

They would say no character violation (a "fueled character flaw") matters, because you have all the time in the world to undo it. There's a good rebuttal to this train of thought, but I don't have time right now to put it together ...

I'd just say that the rewards and the punishments attached to actions flowing from character don't go away - they just change in some areas due to technology - but it is a change in specifics and not in principle. Would it no longer matter if behaved without honor, integrity, honesty, personal responsibility, and no longer valued rationality? I don't think that the measure of the time available to 'undo' bad behaviors is immaterial. That amount of extra time that is being brought up, is also available for realizing more and more positive moral goals, higher levels of self-esteem, more rewards - that by itself balances out their argument.

Post 25

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 7:16pm

"Immortality" (so-called) is a metaphysical impossibility. Given a greatly lengthened lifespan it is more likely for a person to act more, rather than less, rationally.This has been explored in several science fiction novels that I know of; and real history tends to support it. Longevity brings conservatism, not licentious abandon. In fact, when death is at the door, people are often willing to toss morality aside. Thus, "the ethics of emergencies" which even Ayn Rand acknowledged.

(Yeah... okay... now that I re-read that I can misinterpret it...
I believe (as did Rand) that it is in emergencies that morality is demanded. I only point out that - paraphrasing Francisco about James Taggart - "most people" do not have their morality glued on too well, and it is in emergencies that one needs it most.)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/16, 7:19pm)

Post 26

Sunday, October 14, 2012 - 7:47am

Given the sad state of affairs and lack of freedom in the world I chose 80%.

There IS one thing I Would Temporarily plug in for simply because it is "absolutely awesome!" I would plug in to Mopheus's" training modules..but not for the "woah..I know kung fu!!"
I would cram musical theory and all the lessons to be able to play like Tchaikovsky, and all the greatest composers. So that I too could create new rennaissance inspired compositions.

I would also do the same thing with painting, learn the theory and have 30 years of practice..all in a moment... to be able to paint like Carravaggio, Michelangelo, and fuse them all to make it my own. Not so I could paint the sistine chapel..but to create such wonderous life affirming masterpieces that would make the world weep with the joy of it, to celebrate man as an end to himself, an end to altruism made form in art..and yes I would sell it for profit of course!

Post 27

Sunday, October 14, 2012 - 10:10am

Yeah, those training modules -- condensing 30 years of experience into 30 minutes of "transfer time"-- would really mix things up (if they become available). You have great life-affirming examples, but there is also the potential for misuse. I'm thinking of terrorists becoming expert bomb-makers without developing any character along the way -- having the power to destroy without having experience or any developed sympathy with the world or with the people in it. Not developing the "feeling" of what it means to be human -- but having the immediate power to destroy humanity on a whim. This is one of those things -- like completely free energy -- which may be a Pandora's Box.

Anyway, good post.

Ed

Post 28

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 7:54pm

I guessed 20%, but I have objections with the phrasing of the question. This would be a more accurate summary of what is being proposed:

"What percentage of humans would essentially commit a form of suicide, where they gave up their life in meatspace to become a silicon-based artificial intelligence operating in a digital reality (as in the movie: "Matrix")?"

And, if you posit that people who were on their deathbed, days or weeks away from dying, could choose this option, and knew they would "live" in a paradise-like reality, where they would perceive themselves as being healthy and young and sexy and attractive to other mates, I bet many if not most Objectivists might rationally choose that existence over dying, if they could terminate their existence as an AI at any time.

But, the details of that AI environment would matter greatly. If it might be statist hell ala North Korea, or they didn't know what it would be like, or if suicide there was impossible, that would lower the number who chose that option.

Post 29

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 8:05pm

Ed: re this: "People who spend over 7 hours a week online -- which would include, but is not limited to, nearly all of the porn users -- are "special.""

It depends on what one is doing online. For example, I got rid of newspaper and TV, and now get my news and entertainment online. That takes up over an hour a day, but it is just doing online what used to be done on dead tree media or a TV monitor. Add in time socializing at places like this site, or reading books downloaded from the internet and read via PDF (for example, I have been reading "The Market For Liberty" on a PDF downloaded from the Mises Institute), or looking up recipes, or researching questions that crop up that you are curious about, or ordering books or music, or using Google maps to find out the fastest route to drive to a destination, or searching for jobs or furniture on Craigslist, or finding a mate, and that hour or more can be a productive or life-affirming experience.

Or it can be frittered away on Facebook and bad porn.

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 10/24, 8:12pm)

Post 30

Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 4:56pm

PMH

Now we go full circle. From human, to augmented human, to artificial construct "cloned" from a human consciousness, the next step is Pinnochio. "I want to be a REAL boy!"

... as examined by the character Data in Star Trek: Next Generation.

The exquisite luxury of being mortal...

regards,
Fred

Post 31

Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 6:34pm

Jim,

Alright, you make good points. I'll retreat a little from my initial speculation and reword the thing:

People who spend over 14 hours a week online -- which would include, but is not limited to, nearly all of the porn users -- are "special."

Is that better? If not, I can change it to "21 hours a week online" or to "28 hours a week online" -- in order to separate out the special users from the norm.

Ed

Post 32

Monday, October 29, 2012 - 8:30pm

Ed: It's not really how much time is spent online that matters in describing "specialness", but rather what that time is spent accomplishing.

If someone has a job that requires them to spend 10 hours a day online researching things -- say, an engineer at Apple around the year 2000 working on bringing the iPod to market -- and that results in productive, value-adding activity -- not a problem. Unless, say, they are throwing themselves into their work to avoid dealing with a bad marriage, in which case that feverish productivity might not bring them the happiness they actually desire, even though others benefit from their production.

If someone spends just half an hour a day online just killing time, bored and unhappy, rather than doing something more life-enhancing, that wasted half hour would be more "special" than the engineer noted above.

Post 33

Monday, October 29, 2012 - 9:20pm

Jim,

I agree with your points but the issue is the bandwidth utilized for porn. Let's assume for the sake of example that most (>50%) of all the bandwidth in use is used for porn. The naive conclusion is that we live in a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah and we're all going to hell (metaphorically speaking, of course). But that doesn't follow. You can't just look at the bandwidth and conclude that most people are porn-junkies. This is because of their disproportionate use.

If everyone only got exactly one hour a day to use the internet -- and >50% of the this allotted time was used for porn -- then you could generalize as stated above. But we don't all spend the same time on the internet, so you cannot look at overall bandwidth and then generalize results as some kind of an evaluation of the population at large. Here's an analogy: Let's say that there are two guys in professional boxing who take cheap shots and do late hits and whatnot. They have a lot of fights and always fight dirty, but no one else does. Somebody might say:

You know, we should ban boxing because 23% of the fighting ends up being dirty and dangerous -- with boxers hitting each other after the bell, etc.

But someone could rightly retort:

Now, hold on a minute. All of this problem that you are talking about is from 2 guys. We don't need to ban boxing, we need to ban these 2 guys. They are disproportionately displaying this behavior. You can't just look at an overall number, like 23%, and tell me anything indicative of boxing as a sport.

Post 34

Monday, October 29, 2012 - 10:58pm