Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Spec-tac-ular piece by Bakker.

So long as the residue of traditional humanistic philosophy persists, so long as we presume meaning exceptional, this prospect cannot even be conceived, let alone explored. The “evacuation of interiority,” as Scranton calls it, is always the other guy’s—metacognitive neglect assures experience cannot but appear fathomless, immovable. Therein lies the heartbreaking genius of our cognitive predicament: given the intractability of our biomechanical nature, our sociocognitive and metacognitive systems behave as though no such nature exists. We just… are—the deliverance of something inexplicable.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/were-fucked-so-now-what/

 

[Dak]

Yeah decent read, saw it the other day when it popped up on my RSS. This plus some other things (no one thing in particular) are germinating the idea of a book. I may never follow through on it but I finally have an idea that I think might be worth pursuing if I can ever force the time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I'm intrigued to say the least. Admittedly, Bakker's basic premise informs a significant portion of my approach to literature. He can't fully claim originality in this line of thought, although he's probably done more than most in pressing these ideas to their logical conclusion. The only others who can match him, I think, are Ray Brassier, Peter Watts, and maybe a few other speculative thinkers.

But the theoretical implications of this line of thought have been around for decades now, in literature as well as in philosophy. In fact, I'd say they made it into fiction before they made it into philosophy; but then, many philosophical ideas tend to show up in fiction first. Ever since the novel emerged as a genre, writers have known about the formal paradoxes that accompany things like meaning and narrative. From Sterne to (Tom) McCarthy, it's been a long process of exposing the artifice of meaning. I suppose this is why Bakker thinks we're on the brink of the semantic apocalypse.

I think he still has some work to do though if he really wants to combat the meaninglessness of meaning. It'll be fun to watch him try to crack that nut, if he tries.

 

[Dak]

I think he still has some work to do though if he really wants to combat the meaninglessness of meaning. It'll be fun to watch him try to crack that nut, if he tries.

I think to some degree, on this issue, one either takes the Nietzschean or the Schopenhaurian route.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/29/google-city-technology-toronto-canada-218841

If there's enough diversity among cities, this issue would theoretically resolve itself......but then my hunch is that the cities populated by people I adamantly disagree with would struggle in a variety of ways, either economically or "morally".

I assume you mean most big cities, as they tend to be left wing? From my experience with city life, cameras in public are a worthwhile privacy tradeoff for controlling violent crime.

Google is under heavy regulatory pressure to anonymize most of the data it collects, so if you're going to have cameras/sensors everywhere, they're probably safer in Google's hands than in most others.

It could turn out a disaster for privacy, of course, but right now it's a one-off experiment so I'm not too worried about it "taking over the world". I'm looking forward to seeing the results for Toronto.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think to some degree, on this issue, one either takes the Nietzschean or the Schopenhaurian route.

Well, neither Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer predicted the rise of advanced artificial intelligence. I have a feeling that Bakker's planning some route through that.

(by "advanced" I merely mean the hyper-automated intricacies and routines of complex algorithms--not Skynet)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Spec-tac-ular piece by Bakker.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/were-fucked-so-now-what/

This is fucking mindblowing!

I'm skeptical of two of the author's claims:

1) "AI will destroy human society by destroying meaning": While I appreciate the exploration of this as a possibility, the author strikes me as overly certain that AI will develop this capability, and therefore overly certain of this destructive outcome. If his argument is that this is already happening, my anecdotal experience suggests that so far we're not necessarily more mired in cognitive dissonance/conflict today than at other points in time since the Enlightenment, if you factor out other developments like globalization, industrialization, and runaway depletion of natural resources.

2) "Civilization was doomed from the start due to the intractability of our biomechanical nature": It's easy to make this claim today in the context of environmental destruction and natural resource depletion, but I think this oversimplifies things unless we look at individual nations/cultures, as there are some (i.e. the Germanic ones, if we focus on the easier-to-evaluate developed nations) which have a much better track record for sustainability than others.

Aside from that, I thought this was a brilliant articulation of the limits of human cognition, and it looks at our social/political problems in a deeply atomic way that I haven't seen before. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Dak]

This is fucking mindblowing!

I'm skeptical of two of the author's claims:

1) "AI will destroy human society by destroying meaning": While I appreciate the exploration of this as a possibility, the author strikes me as overly certain that AI will develop this capability, and therefore overly certain of this destructive outcome. If his argument is that this is already happening, my anecdotal experience suggests that so far we're not necessarily more mired in cognitive dissonance/conflict today than at other points in time since the Enlightenment, if you factor out other developments like globalization, industrialization, and runaway depletion of natural resources.

2) "Civilization was doomed from the start due to the intractability of our biomechanical nature": It's easy to make this claim today in the context of environmental destruction and natural resource depletion, but I think this oversimplifies things unless we look at individual nations/cultures, as there are some (i.e. the Germanic ones, if we focus on the easier-to-evaluate developed nations) which have a much better track record for sustainability than others.

This is my general opinion as well. A conceit of high level thinkers is that everyone else is struggling with the same existential crisis presented by specifics of the era. More accurately, high level thinkers of the 21st century are identifying the same issues as other high level thinkers of the Enlightenment hence, while the average person is still concerned with whatever routine hedonistic and social pressures of the times.

AI's influence will be so imperceivable to the average person, that someone like Bakker screaming about meaning will seem mad. This is something that more advanced psychologists have to deal with in the room on a daily basis in a different way. Most problems presented in the therapy room are very fundamental human condition type issues. The day I have someone come in with an existential crisis because of AI penetration will probably be the day I post in this thread with a DOOM PAUL meme and a laugh emoji.

I would push back on the Malthusian tone though. We're in far greater danger of chemical poisoning than running out of the sources of the relevant chemicals (eg microplastic poisoning vs running out of oil).

 

[CiG]

This might be a low IQ point so forgive me lmao but; if "human society" were to suffer a crisis of meaning wouldn't it really only happen in the increasingly secular, increasingly irreligious west?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This might be a low IQ point so forgive me lmao but; if "human society" were to suffer a crisis of meaning wouldn't it really only happen in the increasingly secular, increasingly irreligious west?

I'd say technology is roughly as capable of seducing and debilitating religious people. Look at the universal popularity of social media, and how it's replaced natural social interaction for so many.

 

[CiG]

I'd say technology is roughly as capable of seducing and debilitating religious people. Look at the universal popularity of social media, and how it's replaced natural social interaction for so many.

Most religious people are heavily involved in community activity and that's the west, it's way more pronounced in Africa, the middle east, Asia etc. The crisis of meaning really seems to me to be a problem for the irreligious community to worry about, and that includes me.

 

[Dak]

I assume you mean most big cities, as they tend to be left wing? From my experience with city life, cameras in public are a worthwhile privacy tradeoff for controlling violent crime.

Google is under heavy regulatory pressure to anonymize most of the data it collects, so if you're going to have cameras/sensors everywhere, they're probably safer in Google's hands than in most others.

It could turn out a disaster for privacy, of course, but right now it's a one-off experiment so I'm not too worried about it "taking over the world". I'm looking forward to seeing the results for Toronto.

Well it's possible that things are safer in a private company's hands but not necessarily. The "public/private partnership" options in this domain, with the Federal pressure involved, make me skeptical of any sort of one-off sort of protection.

 

[Einherjar86]

This might be a low IQ point so forgive me lmao but; if "human society" were to suffer a crisis of meaning wouldn't it really only happen in the increasingly secular, increasingly irreligious west?

Please don't take this as crude, but I think it's only not a problem for people who don't reflect on the ontological parameters of meaning (and as you said, you aren't a member of that group). If spiritual people remain confident in a fixed set of axioms that guarantee meaning, then they won't encounter any crisis. Of course, they will continue to encounter an unrelentingly material reality that undermines their beliefs, forcing them to rationalize their positions. As long as science keeps developing its knowledge of the Higgs Boson, neutrinos, etc. spirituality will have to answer by fortifying their assumptions about reality.

I don't think Bakker has much concern or time for spiritual people. For him, the unknown "outside" isn't the abode of a deity, but something more like the uncaring plane of the Old Ones, the "mad, black Deleuzianism" of Nick Land, the cosmic vortex that Rust Cohle stares down in the finale of True Detective. All metaphorically speaking, of course--but the basic idea is the same: that there is a reality that exceeds meaning, and spiritual people color this dark space in with the empyrean light of eternal godliness.

It may be the case that those who "believe" are able to fend off the semantic apocalypse, but only for so long; because if the outside isn't a humanist deity that crafted us in its own image, then it probably doesn't give a shit whether we "believe" or not.

To paraphrase Hemingway, we'll die like dogs, and for no good reason.

This is fucking mindblowing!

I'm skeptical of two of the author's claims:

1) "AI will destroy human society by destroying meaning": While I appreciate the exploration of this as a possibility, the author strikes me as overly certain that AI will develop this capability, and therefore overly certain of this destructive outcome. If his argument is that this is already happening, my anecdotal experience suggests that so far we're not necessarily more mired in cognitive dissonance/conflict today than at other points in time since the Enlightenment, if you factor out other developments like globalization, industrialization, and runaway depletion of natural resources.

2) "Civilization was doomed from the start due to the intractability of our biomechanical nature": It's easy to make this claim today in the context of environmental destruction and natural resource depletion, but I think this oversimplifies things unless we look at individual nations/cultures, as there are some (i.e. the Germanic ones, if we focus on the easier-to-evaluate developed nations) which have a much better track record for sustainability than others.

Aside from that, I thought this was a brilliant articulation of the limits of human cognition, and it looks at our social/political problems in a deeply atomic way that I haven't seen before. Thanks for sharing!

No prob! And I agree with your suspicions. Bakker is pretty confident in the evolution of superintelligent AI, and that seems to be a crux for his argument. He seems to speak from a certain teleological perspective that assumes history had to develop a certain way. Whether this is actually what he thinks or whether it's just a consequence of the way he talks about it, I'm not sure. But I will say that I think AI are just necessary for the semantic apocalypse (as he calls it) to come to pass. I think the conditions for which it could come to pass are still present, regardless of whether it happens.

 

[CiG]

I don't really know how a spiritual and/or religious person thinks about meaning and how much of an impact science has on the meaning they derive from their faith and the teachings/standards they choose to live by in relation to said faith, I've been an atheist since childhood, but I have a gut feeling that the development of science is rather irrelevant to those deeply held beliefs that inform their everyday actions and more broadly the way they conceptualize meaning in their lives.

I think in some respect the modern phenomenon of young western white males running off to join jihadists is a product of the meaning-hole left in the west by the death of Christianity.

 

[Dak]

God-shaped hole.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't really know how a spiritual and/or religious person thinks about meaning and how much of an impact science has on the meaning they derive from their faith and the teachings/standards they choose to live by in relation to said faith, I've been an atheist since childhood, but I have a gut feeling that the development of science is rather irrelevant to those deeply held beliefs that inform their everyday actions and more broadly the way they conceptualize meaning in their lives.

I mean (), that's what I was saying. I do believe there are spiritual people who reflect on the parameters of belief, but the vast majority do not. And the thought of doing so would be earth-shattering. This is why I asked my post not to be seen as "crude"--because it's a particular kind of narrow-minded individual who can't themselves to reflect on the structure of their conviction.

I don't think science has much impact on people of such conviction; but part of Bakker's point is that the universe doesn't care what you believe. And when it threatens us existentially--by one means or another--science will be the only protection we have. People can choose to keep believing whatever they want, but there comes a point when meaning (especially hermetically sealed meaning) simply can't stand against the horror of matter.

I think in some respect the modern phenomenon of young western white males running off to join jihadists is a product of the meaning-hole left in the west by the death of Christianity.

I think that people need to differentiate between "meaning" and "awe." You can be awed by something in a very experiential way and not need to conceptualize it in a meaningful way. My very religious family has told me that God creating humanity was a miracle. But I quite simply find it infinitely more miraculous that no one created humanity--that humanity just happened. That sounds like a miracle to me, and I'm awed by it. But I don't find any meaning in it. It's a meaningless accident.

In the wake of the "death of Christianity," people are scrambling to find new ways to conceptualize our place in the universe. I think this is a misguided practice, and I agree with you that it leads to extreme behaviors. These behaviors are people's attempts to devise meaning for an increasingly complex modern world.

 

[CiG]

I mean (),

I don't think science has much impact on people of such conviction; but part of Bakker's point is that the universe doesn't care what you believe. And when it threatens us existentially--by one means or another--science will be the only protection we have. People can choose to keep believing whatever they want, but there comes a point when meaning (especially hermetically sealed meaning) simply can't stand against the horror of matter.

I think a flaw in this line of thought is that, unlike the irreligious, those people aren't as fundamentally opposed to the eradication of life or even the planet itself due directly to their religious belief in the afterlife. "Take no thought for the morrow" and so on. This is a big part of why you probably won't ever see religious people or religiously governed countries making a big deal about climate science and environmentalism.

Even the more progressive Christians have shown that theories like evolution don't shake the faith, they just incorporate it into "God's plan" and go on with their day.

I think that people need to differentiate between "meaning" and "awe." You can be awed by something in a very experiential way and not need to conceptualize it in a meaningful way. My very religious family has told me that God creating humanity was a miracle. But I quite simply find it infinitely more miraculous that no one created humanity--that humanity just happened. That sounds like a miracle to me, and I'm awed by it. But I don't find any meaning in it. It's a meaningless accident.

I definitely agree with you here. Again, this just speaks to the massive lack of similarity between how the religious and irreligious think about these things. They see God's hand in something and derive meaning from the idea that God does everything for a reason and we all have our purpose etc etc and you and I see a meaningless event that inspires a similar amount of awe. I'm not sure how we can ever bridge such a chasm.

In the wake of the "death of Christianity," people are scrambling to find new ways to conceptualize our place in the universe. I think this is a misguided practice, and I agree with you that it leads to extreme behaviors. These behaviors are people's attempts to devise meaning for an increasingly complex modern world.

I think this also explains much of the highly energized political activism which seems to take on a hyper-personal character with many people. Humans imo by their nature will create meaning when they inherit none from their family or society at large. It seems to be part and parcel of consciousness.

 

[Dak]

For many there is a desire to be a "part of something bigger than themselves", and all sorts of organizations appeal to this explicitly.

 

[CiG]

I think history shows that while meaning via collectivism is a constant and seems to come naturally to most people, finding meaning via an individualistic approach takes much more convincing. Just because majority of atheists and secularists don't belong to a church it doesn't mean they never attend churches by other names.