Say that the group of like-minded and mutually friendly extreme masochists existed first, and wanted to create their mutually preferred, mutually satisfying sadist. Do you still have a problem with that?
That seems less worrying, but I think the asymmetry is inherited from the behaviours themselves—masochism seems inherently creepy in a way that sadism isn’t (fun fact: I’m typing this with fingers with bite marks on them. The recursion is interesting, and somewhat scary—usually if your own behaviour upsets or disgusts you then you want to eliminate. But it seems easy to imagine (in the FiOverse or similar) a masochist who would make themselves suffer more not because they enjoyed suffering but because they didn’t enjoy suffering, in some sense. Like someone who makes themselves an addict because they enjoy being addicted (which would also seem very creepy to me))
To be consistent with this, do you think that parenting of babies as it currently exist is problematic and creepy, and should be banned once we have the capability to create grown-ups from scratch?
Yes. Though I wouldn’t go around saying that for obvious political reasons. (Observation: people who enjoy roleplaying parent/child seem to be seen as perverts even by many BDSM types).
If David had wanted a symmetrically fulfilled partner slightly more intelligent than him, someone he could always learn from, I get the feeling you wouldn’t find it as creepy. (Correct me if that’s not so). But the situation is symmetrical. Why is it important who came first?
I think creating someone less intelligent than you is more creepy than creating someone more intelligent than you for the same reason that creating your willing slave is creepier than creating your willing master—unintelligence is maladaptive, perhaps even self-destructive.
But it seems easy to imagine (in the FiOverse or similar) a masochist who would make themselves suffer more not because they enjoyed suffering but because they didn’t enjoy suffering, in some sense.
Well, OK, but I’m not sure this is interesting. So a mind could maybe be built that was motivated by any given thing to do any other given thing, accompanied by any arbitrary sensation. It seems to me that the intuitive horror here is just appreciating all the terrible degrees of freedom, and once you’ve got over that, you can’t generate interesting new horror by listing lots of particular things that you wouldn’t like to fill those slots (pebble heaps! paperclips! pain!)
In any case, it doesn’t seem a criticism of FiO, where we only see sufficiently humanlike minds getting created.
Like someone who makes themselves an addict because they enjoy being addicted (which would also seem very creepy to me))
Ah, but now you speak of love! :)
I take it you feel much the same regarding romance as you do parenting?
(Observation: people who enjoy roleplaying parent/child seem to be seen as perverts even by many BDSM types)
That seems to be a sacred-value reaction—over-regard for the beauty and rightness of parenting—rather than “parenting is creepy so you’re double creepy for roleplaying it”, as you would have it.
I think creating someone less intelligent than you is more creepy than creating someone more intelligent than you for the same reason that creating your willing slave is creepier than creating your willing master—unintelligence is maladaptive, perhaps even self-destructive.
Maladaptivity per se doesn’t work as a criticism of FiO, because that’s a managed universe where you can’t self-destruct. In an unmanaged universe, sure, having a mentally disabled child is morally dubious (at least partly) because you won’t always be there to look after it; as would be creating a house elf if there was any possibility that their only source of satisfaction could be automated away by washing robots.
But it seems like your real rejection is to do with any kind of unequal power relationship; which sounds nice, but it’s not clear how any interesting social interaction ever happens in a universe of perfect equals. You at least need unequal knowledge of each other’s internal states, or what’s the point of even talking?
Well, OK, but I’m not sure this is interesting. So a mind could maybe be built that was motivated by any given thing to do any other given thing, accompanied by any arbitrary sensation. It seems to me that the intuitive horror here is just appreciating all the terrible degrees of freedom, and once you’ve got over that, you can’t generate interesting new horror by listing lots of particular things that you wouldn’t like to fill those slots (pebble heaps! paperclips! pain!)
You’re right, I understated my case. I’m worried that there’s no path for masochists in this kind of simulated universe (with self-modification available) to ever stop being masochists—I think it’s mostly external restraints that push people away from it, and without those we would just spiral further into masochism, to the exclusion of all else. I guess that could apply to any other hobby—there’s a risk that people would self-modify to be more and more into stamp-collecting or whatever they particularly enjoyed, to the exclusion of all else—but I think for most possible hobbies the suffering associated with becoming less human (and, I think, more wireheady) would pull them out of it. For masochism that safety doesn’t exist.
I take it you feel much the same regarding romance as you do parenting?
I think normal people don’t treat romance like an addiction, and those that do (“clingy”) are rightly seen as creepy.
That seems to be a sacred-value reaction—over-regard for the beauty and rightness of parenting—rather than “parenting is creepy so you’re double creepy for roleplaying it”, as you would have it.
Maybe. I think the importance of being parented for a child overrides the creepiness of it. We treat people who want to parent someone else’s child as creepy.
Maladaptivity per se doesn’t work as a criticism of FiO, because that’s a managed universe where you can’t self-destruct. In an unmanaged universe, sure, having a mentally disabled child is morally dubious (at least partly) because you won’t always be there to look after it; as would be creating a house elf if there was any possibility that their only source of satisfaction could be automated away by washing robots.
Sure, so maybe it’s not actually a problem, it just seems like one because it would be a problem in our current universe. A lot of human moral “ick” judgements are like that.
Or maybe there’s another reason. But the creepiness in undeniably there. (At least, it is for me. Whether or not you think it’s a good thing on an intellectual level, does it not seem viscerally creepy to you?)
But it seems like your real rejection is to do with any kind of unequal power relationship; which sounds nice, but it’s not clear how any interesting social interaction ever happens in a universe of perfect equals. You at least need unequal knowledge of each other’s internal states, or what’s the point of even talking?
Well I evidently don’t have a problem with it between humans. And like I said, creating your superiors seems much less creepy than creating your inferiors. So I don’t think it’s as simple as objecting to unequal power relationships.
I’m worried that there’s no path for masochists in this kind of simulated universe (with self-modification available) to ever stop being masochists—I think it’s mostly external restraints that push people away from it, and without those we would just spiral further into masochism, to the exclusion of all else.
I think we’re using these words differently. You seem to be using “masochism” to mean some sort of fully general “preferring to be frustrated in one’s preferences”. If this is even coherent, I don’t get why it’s a particularly dangerous attractor.
I think normal people don’t treat romance like an addiction, and those that do (“clingy”) are rightly seen as creepy.
Disagree. The source of creepiness seems to be non-reciprocity. Two people being equally mutually clingy are the acme of romantic love.
We treat people who want to parent someone else’s child as creepy.
I queried my brain for easy cheap retorts to this and it came back with immediate cache hits on “no we don’t, we call them aunties and godparents and positive role models, paranoid modern westerners, it takes a village yada yada yada”. All that is probably unfounded bullshit, but it’s immediately present in my head as part of the environment and so likely in yours, so I assume you meant something different?
(At least, it is for me. Whether or not you think it’s a good thing on an intellectual level, does it not seem viscerally creepy to you?)
No, not as far as I can tell. But I suspect I’m an emotional outlier here and you are the more representative.
I queried my brain for easy cheap retorts to this and it came back with immediate cache hits on “no we don’t, we call them aunties and godparents and positive role models, paranoid modern westerners, it takes a village yada yada yada”.
All that is probably unfounded bullshit, but it’s immediately present in my head as part of the environment and so likely in yours, so I assume you meant something different?
No, those examples really didn’t come to mind. Aunties and godparents are expected to do a certain amount of parent-like stuff, true, but I think there are boundaries to that and overmuch interest would definitely seem creepy (likewise with professional childcarers). But yeah, that could easily be very culture-specific.
That seems less worrying, but I think the asymmetry is inherited from the behaviours themselves—masochism seems inherently creepy in a way that sadism isn’t (fun fact: I’m typing this with fingers with bite marks on them. The recursion is interesting, and somewhat scary—usually if your own behaviour upsets or disgusts you then you want to eliminate. But it seems easy to imagine (in the FiOverse or similar) a masochist who would make themselves suffer more not because they enjoyed suffering but because they didn’t enjoy suffering, in some sense. Like someone who makes themselves an addict because they enjoy being addicted (which would also seem very creepy to me))
Yes. Though I wouldn’t go around saying that for obvious political reasons. (Observation: people who enjoy roleplaying parent/child seem to be seen as perverts even by many BDSM types).
I think creating someone less intelligent than you is more creepy than creating someone more intelligent than you for the same reason that creating your willing slave is creepier than creating your willing master—unintelligence is maladaptive, perhaps even self-destructive.
Well, OK, but I’m not sure this is interesting. So a mind could maybe be built that was motivated by any given thing to do any other given thing, accompanied by any arbitrary sensation. It seems to me that the intuitive horror here is just appreciating all the terrible degrees of freedom, and once you’ve got over that, you can’t generate interesting new horror by listing lots of particular things that you wouldn’t like to fill those slots (pebble heaps! paperclips! pain!)
In any case, it doesn’t seem a criticism of FiO, where we only see sufficiently humanlike minds getting created.
Ah, but now you speak of love! :)
I take it you feel much the same regarding romance as you do parenting?
That seems to be a sacred-value reaction—over-regard for the beauty and rightness of parenting—rather than “parenting is creepy so you’re double creepy for roleplaying it”, as you would have it.
Maladaptivity per se doesn’t work as a criticism of FiO, because that’s a managed universe where you can’t self-destruct. In an unmanaged universe, sure, having a mentally disabled child is morally dubious (at least partly) because you won’t always be there to look after it; as would be creating a house elf if there was any possibility that their only source of satisfaction could be automated away by washing robots.
But it seems like your real rejection is to do with any kind of unequal power relationship; which sounds nice, but it’s not clear how any interesting social interaction ever happens in a universe of perfect equals. You at least need unequal knowledge of each other’s internal states, or what’s the point of even talking?
You’re right, I understated my case. I’m worried that there’s no path for masochists in this kind of simulated universe (with self-modification available) to ever stop being masochists—I think it’s mostly external restraints that push people away from it, and without those we would just spiral further into masochism, to the exclusion of all else. I guess that could apply to any other hobby—there’s a risk that people would self-modify to be more and more into stamp-collecting or whatever they particularly enjoyed, to the exclusion of all else—but I think for most possible hobbies the suffering associated with becoming less human (and, I think, more wireheady) would pull them out of it. For masochism that safety doesn’t exist.
I think normal people don’t treat romance like an addiction, and those that do (“clingy”) are rightly seen as creepy.
Maybe. I think the importance of being parented for a child overrides the creepiness of it. We treat people who want to parent someone else’s child as creepy.
Sure, so maybe it’s not actually a problem, it just seems like one because it would be a problem in our current universe. A lot of human moral “ick” judgements are like that.
Or maybe there’s another reason. But the creepiness in undeniably there. (At least, it is for me. Whether or not you think it’s a good thing on an intellectual level, does it not seem viscerally creepy to you?)
Well I evidently don’t have a problem with it between humans. And like I said, creating your superiors seems much less creepy than creating your inferiors. So I don’t think it’s as simple as objecting to unequal power relationships.
I think we’re using these words differently. You seem to be using “masochism” to mean some sort of fully general “preferring to be frustrated in one’s preferences”. If this is even coherent, I don’t get why it’s a particularly dangerous attractor.
Disagree. The source of creepiness seems to be non-reciprocity. Two people being equally mutually clingy are the acme of romantic love.
I queried my brain for easy cheap retorts to this and it came back with immediate cache hits on “no we don’t, we call them aunties and godparents and positive role models, paranoid modern westerners, it takes a village yada yada yada”.
All that is probably unfounded bullshit, but it’s immediately present in my head as part of the environment and so likely in yours, so I assume you meant something different?
No, not as far as I can tell. But I suspect I’m an emotional outlier here and you are the more representative.
No, those examples really didn’t come to mind. Aunties and godparents are expected to do a certain amount of parent-like stuff, true, but I think there are boundaries to that and overmuch interest would definitely seem creepy (likewise with professional childcarers). But yeah, that could easily be very culture-specific.