Virtual vs. Real

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

I’ve got a friend I’ve known for over 20 years now with whom I have frequent conversations about technology, among other things.

In the past I have argued the position that only physical interactions with living beings possessing free will count as “relationships” whereas anything else is illusory and bad for you.

Lately I believe I’ve reversed my opinion.

Yesterday I had a conversation with my friend resulting from him seeing the recent Bladerunner movie about what is “real” and what isn’t.

In the movie the main character, who is a synthetic humanoid, struggles with the notion of what it means to be “real”. He is, of course, real in the sense that a hammer is real, but he is not considered human. He does, however, have a girlfriend… a virtual companion who also appears to be struggling with the notion of what it means to be real.

Like the example of Flatland where three dimensional beings attempt to understand the fourth dimension by picturing two dimensional beings attempting to understand the third dimension, the movie layers the struggles of the synthetic humanoids with questions about whether this AI woman is just a tool that produces a very specific and customized value to its owner or a special being that has exceeded its design and purpose, thereby becoming something more.

A human, it suggests, sees a synthetic humanoid as a tool, purpose built and imbued with just enough capability to produce the desired value. The synthetic humanoid may, however, transcend its design constraints and become something greater than it was meant to be… thereby achieving special status (meaning, joy, rights, a soul, whatever) making its use as a tool a form of slavery.

At the same time that he grapples with his own potential humanity, however, the synthetic humanoid struggles with his relationship with his AI girlfriend… and for a moment it is suggested that the AI may have had the same experience that the synthetic humanoid did… becoming something greater than it was designed to be and thereby acquiring “personhood”.

The idea that the individual gets to subjectively decide for themselves what constitutes their own humanity as opposed to there being an objective standard which is applied by others mirrors my former belief in the reality/illusion dichotomy of physical/virtual relationships.

Like I said, I used to believe that virtual relationships were not real… but my later experiences have lead me to consider the possibility that not only is there little difference between the subjective experience of having an interaction with a real person versus a virtual representation of a person, but also that most “real” people don’t offer much in the way of individuality and self determination anyway.

Today I am far more inclined… and indeed argued in favor of… the notiion that virtual relationships are just as real as relationships with living beings. Virtual experiences, virtual interactions, virtual emotions… why should falling in love with a vietual girl be considered any less “real” than falling in love with a physical one? As anyone here could tell you, the former one is going to be far more rewarding and far less dangerous in the current environment than the latter.

So what do you think? Are men who embrace the “waifu” mentally ill sociopaths or are they posthumanist pioneers?

[SH3LLZParticipant 5569]

It is an interesting concept. Have you seen the movies HER or Ex Machina? Both touch on the subject. They both assume that the AI becomes self aware and able to basically control their own destiny. If that were to happen, then yes, using them as a tool would be a form of slavery because their self actualization would mean that they could now choose for themselves.

I makes me think of the “Universal Paperclip” thing. Where an AI is instructed to make paperclips and because of that directive it fills the world destroying everything. Its so tricky… If a system determines that it is threatened and has “self preservation” build in, does that mean it really self aware? No, because we have bots that sniff out threats from malware already…

At any rate, I dont think the waifu thing in any man indicates a sociopath. I think, a person can love an inanimate object. We all do. Its just like loving your car and protecting it. So… Really its no one else business as long as they arent hurting others.

#POSTHUMANPIONEERS!

#ICETHEMOUT!
#MANOUT!

#ICETHEMOUT!!! #MANOUT!!! #HIDEYOURWEALTH #VAGINAISWORTHLESS

[Anonymous 3]

Thank you for post. You present some interesting points.
First, I do not know what “waifu” stands for.
However,I would suggest you see the movie ” Her” Starring Joachim Phoenix to get an idea of some of the pitfalls that come with a virtual relationship.
Further, there is an island in Japan populated with Japanese men & their sex dolls
That’s a little over the top for me,but it is a present day reality.
I did enjoy reading your presentation.
My preference is Ghosting & Monk mode. That’s how I live my MGTOW life for the most part & very comfortably, I might add

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

I already have a relationship, is all in my mind, I have an agresive, violent, sociopath alien in my head.

I think I’m in love… nop is not gay since is a IT.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

My perspective is that love isn’t real. My girlfriend says she loves me, and I have vague memories of once feeling love. What surprised me about training myself to no longer feel emotions is how quickly emotional memories actually fade once you no longer feel emotions.

This latter bit has happened fairly recently. I find that memories where I experienced feelings of being in love, being angry at finding an ex cheating, being afraid of dying in a certain situation, they are faded. I can sometimes visualize things that happened, but it is like watching a fireplace on a TV and feeling no heat.

The girlfriend can says she loves me, and I look at her, and I realize that ultimately, she is nothing more than a biological machine with flawed chemical programming (known as feelings). I have enough understanding of emotions to pretend and pass an emotional “Turing” test and make it seem like I still have emotions.

I am choosing to be with her because I choose to, not because some hormones compel me to.

Emotions are slavery. Controlling your emotions is merely negotiating a better deal with a slave master; eliminating your emotions is actual mental emancipation.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

Carnage wrote:

I already have a relationship, is all in my mind, I have an agresive, violent, sociopath alien in my head.

I think I’m in love… nop is not gay since is a IT.

I am finding my purpose in life uncertain, since I my understanding has evolved to see pretty much everything as bulls~~~. I feel very little towards the rest of the planet or people. It doesn’t mean much to me. If aliens were going to drop a bomb on the Earth and vaporize it, and offered to take me with them, I’d go, and it wouldn’t bother me one iota when the Earth was vaporized.

Currently, my main goal of life is simply living up to my pre-no-emotions responsibilities. Rendering me incapable of meeting my responsibilities would simply result in my logically choosing to walk away from it all.

I don’t have an angry, violent sociopath inside me. I am placid and ice cold and tranquil. I don’t even particularly register schadenfreude anymore when people who deserve to suffer, suffer.

On the other hand, I also have no compassion anymore. If I had a good reason, I know I could cut someone’s throat and watch them bleed out and feel absolutely nothing: no pleasure, no guilt, no anger, no joy, no cartharsis. Simply doing something, like peeling a banana, or flicking a light switch on.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

SH3LLZ wrote:

They both assume that the AI becomes self aware and able to basically control their own destiny. If that were to happen, then yes, using them as a tool would be a form of slavery because their self actualization would mean that they could now choose for themselves.

Yes, this is the direction most storytellers go… not because they are interested in the psychology of emotional engagement and self fulfillment of the subject, I believe, but because they want to make a statement about the evils of capitalism or racial homogeneity using the object by linking the burgeoning humanity of a synthetic being with that of previously enslaved people or wage earners.

If a system determines that it is threatened and has “self preservation” build in, does that mean it really self aware? No, because we have bots that sniff out threats from malware already

Of course. We already make cars with obstacle avoidance and even the simplest of organisms will move to avoid threats to its own existence. Movies are constantly attempting to define “humanity” in one way or another… whether it’s as “self-defending” or “self-sacrificing”. The truth is that neither of those behaviors is truly definitive.[/quote]

I think, a person can love an inanimate object. We all do. Its just like loving your car and protecting it. So… Really its no one else business as long as they arent hurting others.

I agree without this completely and used it in my argument. Whatever thing it is that gives a person a sense of meaning or purpose or pleasure in their life… so long as they are not actively harming anyone else in being attached to it… can be an object of their love. And if it is sophisticated enough to appear to love them back… just as a pet dog or cat can appear to love… then all the better.

The argument against was “Yes, but love of an object or a pet or a constructed personality that is designed to be perfectly suited to the individual’s needs is not satisfying.”

To which I replied “What love ever is?”

I believe the resistance to AI love doll waifu is not, as people will argue, that loving one is psychologically unhealthy for the subject (as if not having an object of love and affection at all is somehow more healthy) or that it hurts someone else directly but rather that no other human (read: woman) can financially benefit from it… to which I say “If you want women to benefit from men’s ability and decision to love a synthetic companion then get a bunch of women together, start a company and create the perfect synthetic companion then sell a billion of them and share the profits with all the other women.”

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

I do not know what “waifu” stands for.

The word is a Japanese pronounciation of “wife” and refers to any facsimile of a woman that a man can form an emotional bond with in the place of a flesh woman.

The waifu represents the ideal female companion… an object designed and constructed to suit the specific needs of the subject… and can be anything from a picture of an actress or cartoon character, a personality in a dating simulator game, a sex doll or a complex responsive chatbot… whatever level of existence sufficient to make her feel real to the subject.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Ranger One wrote:

My perspective is that love isn’t real. The girlfriend can says she loves me, and I look at her, and I realize that ultimately, she is nothing more than a biological machine with flawed chemical programming.

Well put. This is an excellent point. What we call love is not some transcendent brushing together of two immortal souls but rather rough chemical programming meant to cause us to reproduce. It is in neither in theory nor in practice any more pure or perfect or true than any other attachment we may form to or with any other thing.

[Greg HondaParticipant 6406]

The virtual relationship would involve interaction with an AI?

As this would have been programed by a person it is not entirely virtual as predictable reactions will be written into the code triggered by
predictable stimulus.

The real relationship involves interacting with a human being but not necessarily an individual.
People have been programed by society to respond in predictable ways to stimulus just like the AI. Finding a believable AI is as hard as finding someone with their own mind. Everyone likes to go on about what an individual they are but most follow the herd.
Off the cliff

It's Time to get Wise

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

The primary argument as to what would make a relationship with a virtual personality problematic is the same argument used to promote the idea that video games destroy people’s appetite and tolerance for physical activity.

In a gaming environment there are obstacles to overcome, yes, but they are designed to be just hard enough to provide a challenge while being not so hard as to produce frustration. Unlike life, the argument goes, a game should be entertaining and engaging and to do so, it must deliver challenges tuned to the abilities and proclivities of the player… otherwise it won’t sell and nobody will play it.

Physical activities are much less tuned to the subject and offer much slimmer margains of error… and therefore provide challenges that force the subject to grow, goes the argument. Risking physical harm makes the subject more keenly aware of the consequences of their mistakes and the existince of challenges too great to overcome without months or years of development give the subject something to work toward. This supposedly makes physical activities “meaningful” and “real” in a way that games can not be.

To which I say “An experience that is tuned to the individual’s wants, needs, skill levels and risk taking tolerance is problematic? And who says that the purpose of living… and of relationships… is to force the individual to grow? What is so wrong with developing skills and experiences at one’s own pace or simply enjoying an experience that delivers pleasure and satisfaction without conflict and the potential for bodily harm?”

To be honest, I know very few people who play video games in God Mode. Sure, you can make yourself invulnerable and get infinite ammo but that takes away the fun. Games can and should be challenging and gamers want them to be. Learning a game’s mechanics, understanding its stories, figuring out its meanings and even collecting all the goodies can feel just as much or more meaningful than working in an office, climbing the corporate ladder, pursuing creature comforts and struggling with romantic partners.

Why would someone wanting a relationship with a virtual personality treat it any differently than a game? Just like a video game, you’d want it to be as realistic as possible without compromising enjoyment, you’d want it to be varied enough to stay interesting and offer challenges that required you to develop understanding and skill… and you’d want it to be just unpredictable enough to make it feel real… just you wouldn’t want it to have the ability to leave you, kill you or have you thrown in jail.

A highly educated, emotionally expressive and loyal woman with an interesting wardrobe and a taste for kink can do all of those things… if you can find one for yourself… but why take the additional risks or go without if you don’t have to any more?

[AttonParticipant]

A machine with the intelligence of even a young child is likely more dangerous than every nuclear weapon on Earth. The human brain has upper limits on its ability to process information. However these limits can be largely removed in the context of a computer.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[sjt1975Participant 2536]

When you know that female ‘love’ is nothing more than a smoke-screen for their desire/need for protection/resources from a man, why would you even want an artificial, robotic, and/or virtual simulation of it? Artificial Companionship? Meaningless Sex? You’re better off expanding your mind, doing hobbies… improving yourself.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

sjt1975 wrote:

When you know that female ‘love’ is nothing more than a smoke-screen for their desire/need for protection/resources from a man, why would you even want an artificial, robotic, and/or virtual simulation of it?

Good question. I would answer “because you’re instinctually driven to seek it”. Knowing that female love is a sham would actually make it easier to accept a more perfect illusion offered by a virtual partner and some might argue that since both are artificial, it’s better to fulfill your biological urges with a fake feeling with less risks attached than to leave it unfulfilled altogether.

Now there are those here would argue that overcoming our instinctual drivers is perhaps what “improving yourself” means. But then I would ask “why should I bother improving myself?”

Prior to taking the red pill, self improvement was motivated by the need to acquire a mate. Without that, what is the imperative of self improvement? Why not just stop pursuing an impossible goal and just coast through life enjoying yourself, doing the minimum effort possible?

Self improvement as a MGTOW seems to me a lot like continuing to search for your wallet after remembering you dropped it in the lake. Maybe the original search was futile, though you just didn’t know it, but now you’re simply going through the motions for no reason whatsoever.

Wouldn’t it be better to just check out, enjoy your time, fulfill your desires and respond to your instincts to the best of your ability and just accept yourself for what you are?

[Author]

Posts