Instance of Great Suffering Walks Into a Bar
Actually written JUNE 22, 2016
Instance of Great Suffering walked into a bar and asked the bartender: “I’m looking for Relief. Have you seen her?”
The bartender replied, “What can I tell ya, kid? We get all kinds of folks in here claiming they are the one and only Relief. But a lot of suffering instances like you seem to gravitate toward the Omnipotence Twins. That’s them, the two elderly ladies over by the dart board. Maybe go over there and check out what they have to offer.”
So Instance of Great Suffering wandered over and introduced himself. “Excuse me, I’m an Instance of Great Suffering. The bartender tells me you two might be of some assistance to a wretch like me.”
THE OMNIPOTENCE TWINS
The older of the two ladies replied. “Why, yes. We are the Omnipotence Twins. I’m Deity and this is my twin sister, Culture. We specialize in changing reality to relieve suffering. We can do this because we are omnipotent.”
“Cool.” said Suffering, “How does it work?”
Deity continued: “Well, you see, just do what I tell you and I’ll change reality to relieve you, maybe. Maybe a little while you’re alive, if I feel like it. But more likely after you die.”
But then Culture offered her opinion on that, saying: “Ha! My sister’s running a scam. The only real way she relieves is by making you a member of a community of fellow followers. It is only by this sense of strong community that you get relieved. Her followers confuse this communal bonding type of relief with her actual power over reality. It’s a scam. I mean, the scam does relieve suffering a bit if you believe it does. But it relieves by means other than she’s advertising. If you want real relief as advertised, try me instead.”
As Deity rolled her eyes in contempt for her sister, Suffering turned to Culture, saying “Ok. Cool. How do you work?”
So Culture then explained: “Well, you see, unlike my sister who must be placated by obedience, I can be somewhat persuaded to change reality through political action. If you can censor what my constituents say, and legislate what they do, you can change me, so that I in turn change reality.”
“Really? You can cure diseases like cancer and stuff if we change how people talk and act about cancer? Even if we must change these practices by political force?”
“Yep. It works by a theory called ‘cultural relativism.’”
Just then, a scoff of contempt ensued from a woman a few tables away.
“Who’s that?” asked suffering.
“That’s Realism. She’s just miffed ‘cause none of you Instances of Great Suffering ever come to her for relief. All she gets are Instances of Great Privilege looking to keep their pleasure advantages. Stick with me, kid.”
“Well, no offense,” offered Suffering, “but I’d like to see what she has to offer too, before deciding who to patronize.”
“Suit yourself, kid. But when you are done interviewing her, come back to me so I can warn you about the scam she’s running.”
“Uh, ok.” concluded Instance of Great Suffering, as he headed over to Realism’s table. As he arrived, he greeted Realism, asking:
REALISM
“Excuse me, but I understand you have some criticism of what the Omnipotence Twins are offering. If this is so, may I hear it from you?”
“Have a seat, kid.” Replied Realism. “Them two are scammers. Did Culture give you the old dig at her sister, Deity, about the relief that comes from being a member of a community of believers?”
“Yep.”
“If Culture had any self-awareness, she’d realize that the same could be said of what she herself offers.
“But look, here’s the fundamental problem with them two:
“First, they claim to create reality, or create truth. Creating either, implies creating the other.
“But here’s the thing, kid. This means they are able to create any reality, any truth.
“This means they can create a reality in which they can not create reality, or make true the fact that they can not make truth. That’s what we call the self-contradiction of omnipotence. It renders the very idea of omnipotence meaningless. No matter how they try to patch up the problem with special cases and exceptions, the self-contradiction just returns to destroy all meaning in what they say.”
A bit impressed with this, Instance of Great Suffering responded: “Oh my. Good point, Ms. Realism. But, um, how do you relieve?”
“Yer not gonna like this, kid. But all I’ve got to offer in that department is the compensating warm fuzzies of being martyr to reality-based science and advancing technology toward universal abundance that may not even help you in your lifetime, but may help future generations. You don’t get the warm fuzzies of believing you can influence an omnipotent power to relieve suffering in your lifetime. But, well, at least you get the realistic martyr warm fuzzies of not impeding technology-based relief with ill informed political action.
“Also, unfortunately, I can’t offer you the compensation of belonging to a community of fellow martyrs to advancing technology. There is no such community. None of you Instances of Great Suffering are buying what I’m offering. So if you stick with me, you’ll be rather alone. Sorry kid. If you want to go back to the Omnipotence Twins, I’d totally understand.”
“Shit.” replied Instance of Great Suffering, gazing wistfully at the ashtray on the table. “I sure don’t want to aggravate my suffering with that kind of loneliness.”
“It gets worse, kid. If you stick with me, you’ll only feel pity for the followers of the Omnipotence Twins, as you’ll see them as neurotic fools, with their fantasy political programs bent on supporting the powers they falsely believe are omnipotent, who unwittingly impede the very technological progress that could relieve future suffering. And if you attempt intimacy with any of them, they’ll detect your insulting pity and shun your ass. So ya, maybe you’d better stick with the crowd back among the Omnipotence Twins.”
“Oh my,” winced Instance of Great Suffering. “You almost sound bitter about it.”
“I am bitter. But I’ve got a point, don’t I? Take care of yourself, kid. Do what ya gotta do to get relief.”
“Mom!” interrupted one of the two young men sitting across the table. “Stop being such a downer. There may be hope for him after all.”
TRANSHUMANISM AND SINGULARITY
Realism smiled. “Allow me to introduce my youngest son, Transhumanism. And that’s his best bud, Singularity.”
“Pleased to make your acquaintance, Transhumanism. Do you offer any real hope of relief?”
“Yes!” replied Transhumanism. “My mom’s too pessimistic. The scientific advances needed to relieve your suffering might happen in your lifetime after all. Especially on account of my buddy here, Singularity.”
“How do you do?” said Singularity.
“I’m feeling miserable,” replied Suffering.
“Well, hang in there, buddy. I’m the inevitable cure for all suffering. I don’t really exist yet, but I’ll exist soon, and I’ll fix everything.”
“How?” begged Suffering.
“I am the day that artificial intelligence exceeds human intelligence. Shortly after, artificial intelligence will figure out how to build even greater intelligence. And this will repeat rapidly until an intelligence is created sufficient enough to be the super scientist that figures out how instances of great suffering like you can be fully and permanently relieved.”
Transumanism then added: “Your relief may or may not involve fixing up your biological body. It might involve transferring your consciousness to a more durable medium, such as a supercomputer that can offer you the experience of any reality you want.”
“Sounds interesting,” replied Suffering, “but I’m an instance that doesn’t have much time. I’m very near the end of my expected lifespan.”
“How long do you have?” Transhumanism asked.
Instance of Great Suffering held up his hand and signaled the time with his fingers.
Transumanism and Singularity lost their enthusiasm and looked helplessly concerned for Suffering.
“We’re so sorry. I don’t think we can become helpful to you in time.”
Suffering sighed and looked down at the ashtray again.
THE BOUNCE-BACK
Then Realism repeated her suggestion:
“I’m sure Culture told you to go back to her so she can offer you some shit about how I’m some kind of scammer too. Go ahead, kid. For your sake, I rather hope she convinces you.”
“Um.” Instance of Great Suffering mulled, “Ya. Well I guess I’ll do just that. Thanks for your time, Ms. Realism.”
As Instance of Great Suffering returned to the Omnipotence Twins, Culture greeted him with a smile.
“How was that visit with Realism now? Did she regale you with some nonsense about how our omnipotence is self-contradictory?”
“Sure did.” replied Instance of Great Suffering.
“Hey, look kid. You just need to learn a few more things about the nature of truth and stuff to see how her criticism is bullshit. Start off with the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. You’ll then see how logic itself is just one of the things I control.”
“Eh, maybe.”
“Yeah… maybe, shmaybe. Ok. So Realism told you a tale of self-contradiction about us Omnipotent Twins. I can do one better in return to her. Her view of truth is also meaninglessly problematic. Let me fill you in, kid.”
“Sure.”
“The problem has many names, but for now let’s call it ‘the inescapable bias problem.’ We’re all inescapably stuck in our own biases, so none of us can possibly know some supposedly objective truth that must somehow exist beyond these biases. Of course, I, Culture, am the source of these biases.”
“Ahem...” interrupted Deity.
“Of course my sister thinks she is the source of these biases.”
“Huh?” stopped Instance of Great Suffering. “I know I’ve got some biases and all. But why are they inescapable and why do they make objective truth impossible?”
Culture resumed:
“Everything in your mind is determined by the specific way your mind works. Everything, including what concrete objects look like to you, and what ideas you have, and what you take to be reality and truth. All these things are produced by the specific way your mind works. And that’s your bias. And it is inescapable. You cannot escape or bypass the effects of the way your mind works. If your mind didn’t have a specific way that it works, it wouldn’t work at all. In other words, it wouldn’t exist. This is the reason you cannot have objective knowledge. Every bit of information about objective reality that you have in your mind has been distorted by having to be processed by the specific way your mind works.”
“And our minds are created by me to work the way they do,” inserted Deity.
“Well, that’s what I created her mind to believe,” responded Culture.
“Bullshit, sister. Other way around,” retorted Deity.
“If it’s bullshit, why would you make me believe in bullshit?”
“Because I need you to have an obstacle for your faith to overcome.”
“That’s stupid.”
“Well, It’s better than your reason for supposedly making me believe contrary to your reality, which is no reason at all.”
Returning her attention to the Instance of Great Suffering, Culture continued. “Well, the important thing here is that you understand why we cannot know of some supposedly objective reality. Realism is wrong.”
“If she’s wrong,” questioned Suffering, “then why did you make her believe her wrong theory?”
“Well, like my sister here, I work in mysterious ways.”
“But since you make her and her sub-culture of followers believe in realism, realism must be true. And if realism must be true, then cultural relativism must be false. This is the omnipotence contradiction rearing its harmful head again.”
“I made your mind to believe contradictions are invalid. But they’re really ok.”
“But if contradictions are valid, then it’s valid to contradict the fact that contradictions are valid, such that contradictions are both valid and invalid, which is another fact that can be both valid and invalid, which is another fact that can be both valid and … ugh, this can go on infinitely!”
“You’ve hit the wall, kid. Reason is its own undoing. Welcome to pragmatism. Pick your belief system according to what works for you, even if it is faith in my sister. Drink a beer or two with us and let us distract you from yourself.”
“That’s it? That’s fundamentally all you have to offer?”
“It’s the best there can be. But if you don’t quite get this yet, I suggest you visit Realism’s older son over there, the self-absorbed guy at the table next to Realism’s table, reading that porn for the privileged, Atlas Shrugged. His name is Objectivism, and he thinks he’s got a solution to the problem of inescapable bias. And maybe he does. So give him your ear for a while. But then return here and we’ll explain why Realism’s whole family is still pushing nonsense.”
“Ok.” answered Suffering as he departed the Omnipotence Twins again, “I may as well.”
OBJECTIVISM
Suffering approached Objectivism, interrupting his reading: “Excuse me, Mr. Objectivism. I am an Instance of Great Suffering seeking relief. I’m interested in your solution to the problem of inescapable bias.”
Objectivism put down his book and, still gazing at it, responded: “Atlas Shrugged. It really is a great book. A fantastic book.”
Suffering repeated: “Can you help me, sir?”
“Well,” began Objectivism, turning his head toward Suffering. “The way out of suffering is to use your faculty of reason to become the most productive human you can be. If the fruits of your productivity aren’t enough to relieve, the moral pride of choosing to be as productive as you can will relieve.”
“Um… maybe. But right now I’m interested in the solution to the problem of inescapable bias. Can you please explain that?”
“Sure,” replied Objectivism, “but first you must agree that I have no moral obligation to help you. I’m only gonna help you because it is in my self-interest to explain to others why I am right.”
“Your self-interest is good enough reason for me.”
Objectivism shook his head and smiled with a hint of amused disdain. “Sure, kid. Have a seat.”
As Suffering settled into his chair, Objectivism continued:
“Ok. So the omnipotence twins said we are trapped in the inescapable biases of the inescapable way our minds work. This means we are trapped in our own minds and therefore can’t know anything about the way things really are.
“First, let’s review the dilemma.
“The logical problem is this: If we are trapped in our own minds and cannot know anything about the way things really are, then we cannot know that we are trapped in our own minds. Claiming we can’t know anything is a claim to know something. It is self-contradictory nonsense.
“Naively, this self-contradiction alone should be enough to dismiss the idea that we are trapped in our own minds. But there’s still something intuitively persuasive about the supporting argument that the mind must produce a distorting effect on its grasp of existence. It makes intuitive sense that the mind must operate by some means, and that the means by which it operates should shape its output. The mind is a function. The input of the function is the external world, the way it really is. The output is awareness of the outside world – sensations, perceptions, knowledge. But as with all functions, the output is different from the input. The function changes it. To further see my point, consider the reverse implications. If the mind were not this kind of distorting function, it would not operate by any means. Which would mean that it would not exist.
“That’s the bind. If the mind exists, it can’t know reality. If it knows reality, it can’t exist.
“My position on this is that the mind does exist, does work by some process, does behave as a function with outputs differing from inputs, and therefore does do some distorting. But the distortions are only partial.
“That’s the key difference. My opponents say the distortions are total – every aspect of our experience of the world had to be processed by our minds and made different from the world as it really is. While I say the distortions stop somewhere and give way to a valid grasp of the world as it really is.”
“Ok...” injected Suffering, “But why make this claim? It seems like you are just selectively compromising with the ‘mind-as-a-function’ theory so you can admit it has merit on the one hand, but leave just enough room to save your realism on the other hand.”
With a returning smile, Objectivism replied: “Great question, my friend.
“First of all, I’m not compromising. I’m recognizing the fact of relativity. Things look slightly different to different people, whose minds all function slightly differently. Much of the way things appear is relative to the observer. It would be stupid to deny that.
“What I’m doing is objecting to the notion that the relativity is total. The relativity stops somewhere and there we begin to experience the world as it really is.
“And the reason I claim this is not so much to ‘save’ realism, but to recognize the inescapable truth of realism. I don’t need to accept relativity and then find a place for realism within relativity. Realism will barge in and assert itself no matter what. If anything, what I’m accepting is realism and only realism. The relativity I’m also accepting is just a part of the realism I’m accepting.”
“Uh. Ok. But where exactly does the relativity stop?”
“I confess not to know. I don’t know. And I don’t need to know. I leave that for science to figure out. But I also understand that science may never figure that out. The best that science can really do is say that the relativity seems to stop here, based on what we have discovered so far. So I don’t claim to know where the relativity stops; only that it does stop somewhere.”
“But it seems that science says that even space and time are relative. Wouldn’t that mean that space and time are part of the distorted illusion that we are trapped in?”
“Sure. But not the product of just our minds. More precisely, the product of the interaction between our minds and something outside our minds.
“It may very well be that space and time are products of our minds, just like we understand color qualia to be products of our minds. But just as color qualia ...
[Here my writing devolved into fragments and tangents. One such tangent I find entertaining. So, with Objectivism still explaining, here it is:]
“Ok. Suppose there existed a species that lived in a world with plenty of spheres. But suppose the particular way their consciousness worked had them perceive these spheres as cubes instead.
“My opposition would conclude that their perception is wrong. And that every possible species of consciousness suffers this kind of wrongness. And we may as well dispense with the idea that our consciousness has much to do with some supposed ‘external world’, and further, we may as well dispense with the idea of an outside world at all, and concede that consciousness creates our truth and reality – be it the consciousness of an individual, a deity, or collective consciousness of a culture. Hence some form of consciousness is omnipotent.
“I hold that every instance of perception is valid, no matter the form, no matter the bias in that form. This imaginary species does in fact perceive the spheres because perception does not require that we get every detail or property right. Perception is about becoming aware of the object’s existence – and not necessarily the real shape of the object. All perception is valid as long as it results in a basic awareness of the object as being a single unity. The fact that this species perceives spheres as cubes satisfies the requirement of experiencing the ‘cubized’ spheres as single unities. There is no wrong or right way to perceive the spheres because there is only one fundamentally valid way to perceive them, and that is to become aware of them as singular unities. The biases in our form of perceiving them are irrelevant to perception.”
Suffering, staring a bit incredulous at Objectivism, hesitated a bit before asking: “But wouldn’t that species have problems predicting the behavior of spheres if they perceive them as cubes?”
“They might.” continued Objectivism, “That would depend on how harmonious the cube form interacted with the forms in which they perceived everything else. So let’s explore this issue. Suppose the interaction is mostly harmonious, such that nobody among them even realizes there might be a problem in day to day life. But suppose this species has hills in their environment, and that their bodies have flat feet by which they walk up and down these hills. Scientists among them discover the properties of surface friction to explain why their flat feet can walk up and down hills. But their friction theory falls apart when they try applying it to cubes. Why do cubes roll down hill so easily? And why are cubes impossible to stack? This makes no sense.
“So in an effort to reconcile their theory with what they observe, one of their scientists proposes that cubes actually don’t have as much contiguous flat surface as we perceive them to have. Instead, this scientist proposes, cubes aren’t cube-shaped at all, but are shaped more like dodecahedrons. This hypothesis fits the observed behavior better, and is then accepted. And eventually, as their experimentation methods improve, they revise the theory from dodecahedrons to all out spheres. And while they still perceive spheres as cube-shaped, they understand that cube-shaped is merely the form in which they perceive spheres, because of the way their perceptual faculties work.
“And this scientific theory may revolutionize their ability to predict sphere behavior in a way that improves their quality of life – in a way that, oh my goodness, relieves some of their suffering!
“So let me reiterate. This species has always perceived the spheres correctly. But they had wrong knowledge about them. They had always experienced the spheres as singular units, and thus perceived them. But they mis-categorized them as having shapes with lots of contiguous flat surfaces. Scientific investigation eventually helped them re-categorize the spheres as spheres.”
“But,” retorted Suffering, “back when they mis-categorized the spheres as cubes, weren’t they simply wrong?”
“Yes.” answered Objectivism, “They were quite wrong about the shape of the spheres. But they were right about the existence of the spheres.
[Another interesting fragment:]
“Let’s examine the premises of the inescapable bias idea. The idea is that we observe objects through the distorting filter of our consciousness, the distortion made necessary by the fact that our consciousness has to work a particular way. The premise is that there is some correct way that objects should appear to us if we didn’t have this distorting filter. It means objects have a true and correct appearance that we cannot observe. And objects keep having their true appearance even when nobody observes them.
“It is this premise that I reject. I hold that objects do not have any appearance at all when nobody observes them. Furthermore, I hold that objects never have a true or correct appearance even when we observe them. Our consciousness doesn’t distort the correct appearance of objects precisely because objects don’t have correct appearances for us to distort in the first place. They don’t have any appearances at all. They don’t have shapes. They don’t have spatial extension. What objects do have are properties that our consciousness observes in the form of shapes and spatial extension.
[This last fragment may be my first realization and expression of what I call “super-deep relationalsim” elsewhere in this book {blog}]
Comments
Post a Comment