133: The First Steps to the Holodeck

[Novan Leon]

And that's exactly the problem. Your assuming that humans would never consume more than 'enough' than is reasonable. If my definition of 'enough' is so much that it begins to destroy my life, such as over-eating, becoming obsessed with sex, taking out my anger on people via virtual killing, etc., the holodeck would just serve to fuel this excess.

Virtual killings will just serve to fuel an 'excess'? Sorry, but, that argument is leveled at video games *all the time* and it just doesn't hold any water. I don't see why it would be any more applicable to a holodeck than to video games.

I just threw virtual killing in there for arguments sake. I don't believe there's enough data on either side of the aisle to have a reasonable debate on this. I would make the note that killing someone in a modern video game can hardly be compared to killing someone in a holodeck, which would be virtually the same as killing them in real life, down the last detail. Imagine being able to kill/torture/maim/rape tremendous numbers of people without fear of repercussion sheerly for entertainment. Don't you believe this would have some kind of psychological impact on a person after they leave the virtual world and return to normal life?

 

[Novan Leon]

I don't believe there's enough data on either side of the aisle to have a reasonable debate on this.

Maybe, but, that means there's not enough data to be *either* pessimistic or optimistic about the impact of a Holodeck, at least in such a way that we can criticize a person with the opposite belief. Good for the goose, good for the gander, right?

If you truly believe that there's not enough data to have a reasonable debate on this...why are ya trying to have a reasonable debate with me about this? :-D

There's not enough data to reasonably debate whether virtual killing influences real-life behavior or not; this says nothing about our holodeck debate. Besides, virtual killing was only a single example.

My theory about the proposed effects of the holodeck on human society is supported by simple observation of human behavior. Society is filled with people indulging in excess to the point of driving themselves to a early death or the destruction of their lives. Those that don't are those who demonstrate a certain level of self-control or self-discipline. On the other hand, I can't recall a single situation where meeting someone's desires resulted in that person having better self-control. Even if you could, I believe you would be hard pressed to demonstrate this as the norm of human behavior.

Combine these truths about human nature with a device that would give someone the virtually unlimited ability to indulge their desires and the outcome is hardly optimistic.

 

[Novan Leon]

Society is filled with people indulging in excess to the point of driving themselves to a early death or the destruction of their lives. Those that don't are those who demonstrate a certain level of self-control or self-discipline.

I agree. What I've been saying since comment 28 is that a feeling of security is sufficient to create self-control and self-discipline in an individual. I've never denied that you can call it self-control or self-discipline; what I've been arguing is that those two things can (must?) be produced by a feeling of security. And that once people feel they have an unlimited supply of something, that creates a sense of security in a person, no matter how needy they may be.

So how does security produce self-control or self-discipline exactly? I know I have a reliable source of food, so how does this give me self-control? I know I have an unlimited supply of cigarettes, how does this give me self-control?

On the other hand, I can't recall a single situation where meeting someone's desires resulted in that person having better self-control. Even if you could, I believe you would be hard pressed to demonstrate this as the norm of human behavior.

Really? You've never seen someone who was acting out because they needed unconditional love get their act together once they finally get some? When the desire to be loved being met has changed a person? I'll admit that the older a person gets the harder it gets to reverse that damage, but, I think it's pretty well established that a feeling of security is connected to people with healthy behavior, people with self-discipline and self-control.

In this case you're talking about someone without self-control who has already fallen into excess. When people have fallen this far they eventually reach a point where they lose hope that things can change. They need love and encouragement to give them the hope necessary to keep on fighting. Hope is always necessary in every aspect on life, for without hope, everything begins to fall apart. Hope can come from many places. This is very different from the security that we're talking about.

If I'm a drug addict and I know that I have an unlimited supply of drugs, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm addicted to eating and I know that I have an unlimited supply of food, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm a porn addict and I know that I have an unlimited supply of porn, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm a lazy bum and I know that I never have to work, this does nothing to create self-control.
I would argue that giving someone an unlimited supply of something actually tests someone's self-control rather than enforcing it.

On the other hand, if I've lost all hope because I'm addicted to X, love and encouragement are always important to build hope and eventually bring myself back to the fight. Besides, how does a holodeck give someone an unlimited supply of love and hope? Hope from dying from starvation maybe, but that's about it.

EDIT: I think your reasoning is based on the assumption that excess is the result of fear, fear of lack at a later point in time. If this is correct, I can see how you're coming to the wrong conclusion.

 

[monodiabloloco]

I see a whole lot of generalization here with a focus on the obvious pleasures that many people would take advantage of. Something like that would be a huge breakthrough. Hell, a decently well created VR would bring about a huge shift in our cultures as a whole. It would however, as with anything, be down to individual choice. A great many people would embrace this tech and run with it (literally in some cases). There would be reports of some people who locked themselves in and were found dead after a 4 day marathon gaming session, or would refuse to come out just due to their inability to cope with real world situations and people, but I don't think the world as a whole would just come to a screeching halt. People would need to pay to buy this tech, to keep it running, and to get the latest software for it. Course Microsoft Office 2037 H.D. version with a fully interactive office environment would possibly make going out to the office passe. As a whole, though, people are social creatures and I don't think this would permanently replace human interaction. Well... not for most of us. I already know a good many who live only through their mouse and keyboard..
Besides, eventually, people would get all 'retro' and go hang out together at clubs... probably bringing back grunge and be all angsty...

 

[Novan Leon]

I see a whole lot of generalization here with a focus on the obvious pleasures that many people would take advantage of. Something like that would be a huge breakthrough. Hell, a decently well created VR would bring about a huge shift in our cultures as a whole. It would however, as with anything, be down to individual choice. A great many people would embrace this tech and run with it (literally in some cases). There would be reports of some people who locked themselves in and were found dead after a 4 day marathon gaming session, or would refuse to come out just due to their inability to cope with real world situations and people, but I don't think the world as a whole would just come to a screeching halt. People would need to pay to buy this tech, to keep it running, and to get the latest software for it. Course Microsoft Office 2037 H.D. version with a fully interactive office environment would possibly make going out to the office passe. As a whole, though, people are social creatures and I don't think this would permanently replace human interaction. Well... not for most of us. I already know a good many who live only through their mouse and keyboard..
Besides, eventually, people would get all 'retro' and go hang out together at clubs... probably bringing back grunge and be all angsty...

The question is, if computers can reach a point where they can simulate human interaction at such an advanced level as a holodeck, plus the ability to fine-tune the human interaction to your particular wants or needs, would anyone really have a reason for REAL human interaction?

But, hey! I'm all for retro movements! Bring on the disco!

 

[skyfire_freckles]

"Self"-control. This is control you impose on yourself, right? How can you impose control on yourself if you don't have plenty of the thing you want?

A drug addict who is out of drugs and therefore cannot dose himself is not exhibiting self-control.

A person with only enough food to keep him or herself alive and therefore cannot overeat is not exhibiting self-control.

Only when we have plenty of something can we even begin to develop self-control.

Now, would we automatically develop self-control in a world of plenty, just cuz? No. We need a reason to do so; a reason that makes self-control more important than simply indulging ourselves. We have to have some conscious sense of what "enough" is.


A world with free and unlimited access to a holodeck would not provide this on its own. This comes from a world with challenge. First to learn to communicate, then to gain the approval (or just the attention!) of one's parents. We must not forget that our parents guide us. They don't make us who we are, but they are a major influence for good or ill. Our lizard brains tell us we need things, but it's our parents who show us how to fill these needs. If this job is not done well, people will not develop self-control in any environment.

People who are messed up need plenty of the good stuff; love, understanding, support; if they are to heal, and none of the not-so-good, addictive stuff. But which would they create for themselves if they had access to a holodeck?

We live in a society with varying degrees of messed-up and not-so-messed up people. A holodeck could be a great tool for learning who we are and what we truly want and need, and it could be a horrible vice that would help destroy us. But it would be entirely up to us as individuals and as a society to determine which it would be.

 

[skyfire_freckles]

The holodeck is way different from MMO's; with a holodeck, you can create any world you wish, limited only by your imagination. In MMO's, one is limited by game mechanics, and artificial challenges are created by the game designers in order to make the game 'fun'. You know, I just realized that it's true; people play video games for the challenge, and not just any challenge. It has to be a challenge you can overcome with a reasonable amount of practice, but it can't be too easy, or it's not fun.

I can see the future; everyone has a holodeck, (because of course this technology and they power to produce and run it is automated and absolutely free; such a wild notion could only be real inside this mythical holodeck, and then you have a holodeck within a holodeck within a holodeck, all powered only by a magickal spark of conscousness) and they create virtual worlds. Each one has their own world, full of everything they can imagine. Sorcery, high adventure, unbelievable technology and they're always the main character in their world. If they wish, they can be a sculion who rises to power again and again. They can wake up each day to luxury or squalor, on a tropical island or in the wretched caves of an icy world.

Many people would be content with this. Others would seek out other humans they knew to be real, so that they could participate in conversations and power struggles that "matter", because they occur between fellow chunks of flesh. So worlds would be created MMO style, in which real people lived fake lives of this kind, and the most popular worlds would be the most imaginitive and enjoyable.

Still other people would long for the unpredictability and grittyness of the real world, a world in which no one knows if there will be a happy ending; this makes those happy endings sweeter.

Some people will vanish into the 'net. Others will stay and keep the human race alive, because people are more than animals; we understand that we need to keep going, and some people are willing to accept that responsibility. Our genes command that we survive; that's why we have hunger and lust, why sex and eating feel good. It would take a concious understanding of our places in virtual and real worlds to ensure the continuation of our species, but that's what it takes anyway, isn't it?

My last point, and then I'll shut up about this for now. Star Trek is a "utopian society" to begin with. Oh, I know, they introduced money and strife to make it interresting (TV, like video games, have to have challenge in order to be fun), but the basic human society in Star Trek is one in which people are valued and encouraged to do what will be the most fullfilling for them. A society like that could have a holodeck dropped into it without twitching much.

 

[skyfire_freckles]

Unfortunately, at least in American culture, there is no such thing as "enough." "Keeping up with the Joneses" is the most destructive thing in our society. Having more than anyone else is an idiotic ego trip triggered by our lizard brain's want to stand out from the crowd and look powerful (thus attracting mates and cohorts). Our country could have a greater quality of life, if people understood how to put a cap on their "wants" and focused more on the real "needs" of society.

Why, is American culture responsible for our lizard brains?

It's all well and good to be a naysayer and talk about how there's no such thing as 'enough' but, if you think the these "idiotic ego trips" are triggered by something like our lizard brain, how do you propose to put a cap on our wants? If you really think we're wired to never find anything to be enough, why are you bothering to talk about the possibility of "a greater quality of life" when what you have to put a "cap" on is something just a little less basic about the human brain than breathing?

Okay, these "ego trips" are triggered by our "lizard brains want to stand out from the crowd and look powerful", not just our lizard brains. I think there are healthier ways to satisfy those wants than "keeping up with the joneses". Perhaps a way in which we can satify our wants and the needs of society at the same time? Instead of grasping at material goods to create an illusion of prosperity at the expense of others in order to make ourselves stand out, we could actually attempt to create something meaningful and good that will help people into the future. Wouldn't that make one stand out against the crowd?

I agree that our culture doesn't encourage these things, and it's a shame.

 

[General Ma Chao]

Unfortunately, at least in American culture, there is no such thing as "enough." "Keeping up with the Joneses" is the most destructive thing in our society. Having more than anyone else is an idiotic ego trip triggered by our lizard brain's want to stand out from the crowd and look powerful (thus attracting mates and cohorts). Our country could have a greater quality of life, if people understood how to put a cap on their "wants" and focused more on the real "needs" of society.

Why, is American culture responsible for our lizard brains?

It's all well and good to be a naysayer and talk about how there's no such thing as 'enough' but, if you think the these "idiotic ego trips" are triggered by something like our lizard brain, how do you propose to put a cap on our wants? If you really think we're wired to never find anything to be enough, why are you bothering to talk about the possibility of "a greater quality of life" when what you have to put a "cap" on is something just a little less basic about the human brain than breathing?

Okay, these "ego trips" are triggered by our "lizard brains want to stand out from the crowd and look powerful", not just our lizard brains. I think there are healthier ways to satisfy those wants than "keeping up with the joneses". Perhaps a way in which we can satify our wants and the needs of society at the same time? Instead of grasping at material goods to create an illusion of prosperity at the expense of others in order to make ourselves stand out, we could actually attempt to create something meaningful and good that will help people into the future. Wouldn't that make one stand out against the crowd?

I agree that our culture doesn't encourage these things, and it's a shame.

America's culture isn't responsible for our lizard brains. Evolution is. And our "get ahead at all costs" culture has added to it. We're still under the impression on an instinctive level that anyone different from us is a detriment or enemy to the pack. For example, a pack of wolves will always have an omega male and female. They are usually the weakest of the wolves and will be picked on and snarled at by the rest of the pack. They will always eat last and must always be at a distance from the pack. The omegas usually have 3 options:
1) Accept their lot.
2) Fight their way to a higher position and become the very thing that oppressed them.
3) Leave and try to cope on their own.

Our ancestors had that third option, we really don't. Pretty much everything is owned by someone now. People can overindulge in it because they literally see "no way out." All because no one showed them how to become a functioning, healthy being. In conclusion, if we recognize our tendency to act like animals, the sooner we could act towards a greater sense of community. Don't alienate someone because he wants to wear all black. Does that really affect your ability to function? I doubt it.

 

[Novan Leon]

So how does security produce self-control or self-discipline exactly? I know I have a eliable source of food, so how does this give me self-control? I know I have an unlimited supply of cigarettes, how does this give me self-control?

EDIT: I think your reasoning is based on the assumption that excess is the result of fear, fear of lack at a later point in time. If this is correct, I can see how you're coming to the wrong conclusion.

Yes--that's exactly what I'm saying. And it's what you see out in the world all the time. I was watching Family Jewels, the Gene Simmons reality show. A guy who can never have enough money. He was at a psychologist, and he mentioned how when it was just him and his mom struggling financially in his youth, he woke up in a sweat, panicked about the feeling of being powerless.

Gene Simmons cannot stop trying to make money. I see it as a product of that early experience of feeling powerless. I say he's a pretty solid example of what I'm talking about.

This proves my point exactly.

If your theory were correct, now that Gene Simmons has tons of money, he should feel secure to stop hoarding money. Instead, his hoarding continues and no amount of money seems to satisfy, refuting your point. This would probably lead you to make the next argument: that if Gene had access to a holodeck as a child, he never would have developed these insecurities, which leads me to my next point...

If I'm a drug addict and I know that I have an unlimited supply of drugs, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm addicted to eating and I know that I have an unlimited supply of food, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm a porn addict and I know that I have an unlimited supply of porn, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm a lazy bum and I know that I never have to work, this does nothing to create self-control.
I would argue that giving someone an unlimited supply of something actually tests someone's self-control rather than enforcing it.

Number one, you're only talking about damaged people there. So are you agreeing that generations raised with Holodecks around will be much less damaged than our own?

Um, no, it would probably be the same. If anything it may be worse.

Take a child for example. Give a child unlimited access to anything that they want and what do you think would happen? The only reason adults can handle some of the things that children can't is because they exercise better judgement and the necessary self-control to handle it. The parent's job is to exercise that self-control on behalf of the child (by setting down rules and enforcing them). While Gene Simmons might not have developed an insecurity about money, you can be assured there would be other negative side effects (such as being spoiled blind).

Number two, I think most people who engage in destructive behaviors like the ones you're describing do so *because* they're destructive. I don't think people get psychologically addicted to things because they lack self-control. They get addicted because they lack self-esteem, to return to an earlier point. And the only 'destructive' thing about a Holodeck I can think of is withdrawing from society. Which leads to:

Three things:
1. I have a hard time believing people engage in destructive behavior just for the heck of it. People's behavior becomes destructive when they desire something more than they should, and more than what is healthy for them, both physically and psychologically.
2. As I stated in my first post, self-control and self-discipline build confidence. Hard work, one result of self-discipline, leads to accomplishment and a greater level of self-esteem. People without self-esteem (ie. without self-control) tend to fall into addiction than those with a greater level of self-esteem (greater confidence as the result of great self-control).
3. The holodeck would, theoretically, give us access to as much of anything that we want, essentially sending those without good judgement and self-control into a tailspin until they die or wake up to cold hard reality and begin exercising self-control.

Besides, how does a holodeck give someone an unlimited supply of love and hope? Hope from dying from starvation maybe, but that's about it.

Dude, people are already getting what they consider love from Real Dolls. Imagine how much more effective a Holodeck would be. I'm talking Holodeck-as-healthy-transitional-object theory here.

And you consider these people who get their 'love' from Real Dolls to be healthy individuals? Do you think a Real Doll could play the roll of a friend or loved one in helping someone out of drug addiction?

Also, what kind of Holodecks are we talking about here? Is a minute in the Holodeck a minute in the real world? Or a second? Wouldn't that be the most powerful Holodeck of all--the one that isn't just a glorified gumball machine, but one that extends the duration of our consciousness?

I'm assuming the holodeck to be equivalent to the Star Trek: Next Generation one, space and time distortion not included.

I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. Our views on human nature are almost completely opposite. Your world is a very materialistic one wherein people's identity changes depending on their physical surroundings; if you can change people's physical surroundings, the people will change as well. My world is one where people's identity is tied to human nature, and remains constant regardless of their physical surroundings. People will always want more regardless of how much they have, and the only thing that can cause them to be satisfied is something changing internally such as the state of their mind. Many things change but people's core human nature remains the same.

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Novan Leon]

In conclusion, if we recognize our tendency to act like animals, the sooner we could act towards a greater sense of community. Don't alienate someone because he wants to wear all black. Does that really affect your ability to function? I doubt it.

How true is that, though? If you believe something is truly hard-wired into us at the lizard brain level, how does recognizing it change anything?

My point is we should be careful before saying 'oh--it's our lizard brains' when talking about destructive tendencies. That removes the possibility of humans ever getting past such behavior unless we biologically evolve. We should be more precise when we say these things, like saying 'lizard brain+American culture=major ass suckage' If we don't have a variable in the equation we can change--like culture--well, then we're stuck with whatever we conclude unless we biologically evolve.

I think the answer comes from identifying what makes American culture differ from other cultures. Key words: affluence, prosperity, power. To quote Will Smith:

"Money and success don't change people; they merely amplify what is already there."