133: The First Steps to the Holodeck

[Novan Leon]

Let me stop you right there: tons does not equal infinite. To go back to something from an earlier comment, I think you keep missing the distinction between one finite number larger than another finite number, and the qualitative--not just quantitative--difference between a finite number and infinity.

The difference is irrelevant, all that matters is the point at which someone becomes satisfied. It doesn't matter where that point is, whether it's a finite number or infintely large, if the person of mention never reaches that point. Agreed?

See, I think you misunderstand human nature. Children don't get spoiled when they are assured of getting what they ask for; children get spoiled when they are assured of getting what they ask for *when accompanied by bratty behavior*. Big difference.

You're partially correct. The other part is developing expectations. If my kid is allowed to have as much as he wants of anything, that is what he begins to expect. If he asks for a skateboard, next he will ask for a bike, next he will ask for a car, next a yatch (sp?), next a space shuttle... at what point is he satisfied? What what point does he have 'enough' and begin to learn self-control as you have explained, or does he continue wanting 'more' and not just 'enough' as I have proposed? If he feels like he can have or do anything he wants (the ultimate feeling of security, is it not?) what is to prevent him from stealing, killing, etc?

The third part is physical and psychological well-being. Too much candy will rot his teeth and cause early death, along with low self-esteem, etc. Bratty behavior is just part of it.

Let's face it--most 'rules' have to do with the resources of the parents. There's nothing inherently corrupting about giving a kid a pony if that's what he really wants. It's just that most parents can't afford a pony. That's why they have to set the 'no pony' rule--they can't afford it.

That's true, but rules are also necessary for the reasons I stated above.

1. I have a hard time believing people engage in destructive behavior just for the heck of it.

Well, if you're really interested, look into it. I think you'll be surprised by what you find, that it plays a much larger part than you think.

Can you give me any real-world examples of people engaging in destructive behavior with no other motivation? The most common motivation for seemingly random destructive behavior is the desire for a feeling of power, but this is a far cry from the self-destructive tendencies that most unintentionally accompany excess.

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.

What about workaholics? People addicted to exercise? Not every addict is a lazy drug-addled porn collecting glutton, you know.

These are excellent examples of people without self-control, knowing when to stop working/exercising and balance themselves with other activities. I think you'll find that both these types of people actually have an underlying desire driving them, even if it's subconscious. People become workaholics because work is how they define themselves. Same for people addicted to exercise. For some of them, the feeling of accomplishment that they get from working or exercising may be the only pleasure they get in life, and thus it becomes an escape.

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.

So wait--how are these people without good judgment going to start exercising self-control? You keep talking about how stuff like self-control is taught--how are these people going to 'learn' self-control from a Holodeck? How does that mesh with your statement: "My world is one where people's identity is tied to human nature, and remains constant regardless of their physical surroundings"?

If you don't have good judgement, the difference is that you probably won't even want to exercise self-control until you wake up and realize the bad position you're in (example: my addiction to MMORPGS is killing my social life, hurting my career and thus destroying my self esteem). Once you wake up one morning and realize this mistake, your motivation to change and begin exercising self-control begins to take your main focus.

I never said that people would learn self-control from the Holodeck, I said only those with strong self-control would be able to survive it's invention. (a slight exaggeration but you know what I mean)

Let me split this Gordian knot by saying it would be more accurate to say that my world is one where a change in physical surroundings can change something internally such as the state of mind which can cause them to be satisfied. Yours is one where physical surroundings don't have that power.

I'm not saying that physical surroundings can't have an effect on a persons state of mind (otherwise the holodeck couldn't have an effect on us at all), I'm just saying that physical surroundings aren't the primary force that affects a person's state of mind. I would argue that human nature has a much more profound effect on us than our physical surroundings. This is why the holodeck is so potentially damaging... it preys upon our human nature. Physical surroundings can affect, but do not determine, who we are as humans. On the other hand, human nature does determine who we are as humans, unless self-control or self-discipline are exercised.

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

Maybe so, but, I think the more you learn about, say, psychological addictions--especially 'positive' ones like workaholism--or child psychology beyond the quasi-puritan ideology you seem to have, the more merit you'll see in what I'm saying.

I doubt it. Nothing your saying seems to hold any merit when introduced to the real world. See my remarks on your 'positive' addictions above.

You have yet to explain how self-control and self-discipline are products of feeling secure. If you feel secure, how or why exactly does one control or discipline oneself?

 

[Novan Leon]

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

But other key words associated with America are: hard work, simple folk, and heartland. We're supposed to be happy with an All-American life in a small town with little pink houses for you and me, but we're also supposed to be able to afford an HDTV to watch the game, and the truck we're supposed to drive costs almost as much as some luxury sedans. I think American culture is a much more complex beast than it's often characterized as.

True, but the fact is that "hard work, simple folk and heartland" can also equally apply to Japan, Switzerland and India while "affluence, prosperity and power" are more unique to America.

 

[Novan Leon]

If my kid is allowed to have as much as he wants of anything, that is what he begins to expect. If he asks for a skateboard, next he will ask for a bike, next he will ask for a car, next a yatch (sp?), next a space shuttle... at what point is he satisfied?

Good question. Mind answering it? Have you discovered the line that applies to all children everywhere? Is it between the bike and the car? The yacht and the space shuttle? Where is that line? You say it exists--where is it?

I never said it exists, you did. You're the one that said there was a point where someone would have 'enough'.

If he feels like he can have or do anything he wants (the ultimate feeling of security, is it not?) what is to prevent him from stealing, killing, etc?

A feeling of security. :-D

Then how much does this person need before he can feel secure? Human nature makes it quite possible that he will never be satisfied (either because his point of satisfaction is beyond his reach, or because his point of satisfaction is infinity+1, it makes no difference).

No, seriously, I saw an HBO documentary about the Iceman killer. This guy was one of the most prolific hitmen in modern history. Only regretted one of his murders, and his hit count is over the century mark. Best I can remember, the shrink interviewing him talking about how one of his traits, his disregard for his own well-being, makes people into either anti-social psychos OR it makes them into heroes like fire-fighters and cops and other people who put their life in danger for the greater good. What determines the outcome? How healthy of a childhood they have.

Absolutely correct. We discussed earlier the importance of love and hope, not to mention self-control administered by the parents (ie. discipline). I think your assuming that a healthy childhood is purely composed of having abundant physical resources.

Can you give me any real-world examples of people engaging in destructive behavior with no other motivation?

I think self-mutilation is a pretty good real-world example of such behavior.

Self-mutilation and self-injury are always accompanied by a motive, whether it be self-hate, channeling stress, mental illness such as delusion, or following a cultural custom (such as tattooing). Self-mutilation does not happen (or VERY rarely happens) just for the sake of mutilating yourself ("Yay, mutilating myself is fun! I love mutilation!). At least not to the point where it's painful or truly harmful.

People become workaholics because work is how they define themselves.

And how do those things you're talking about like self-control help a person define themselves? I don't see how they do.

Your confused. Your thinking that because hard work requires a certain level of self control, harder work must always be the result of more self control. It doesn't work that way. Workaholics don't work just for the sake of working, they're driven by other motives, a lot like the self-mutilation example above.

(example: my addiction to MMORPGS is killing my social life, hurting my career and thus destroying my self esteem). Once you wake up one morning and realize this mistake, your motivation to change and begin exercising self-control begins to take your main focus.

Wait, I thought you said that our appetites are like a fire, that indulging them only makes them grow? That contradicts what you're talking about here.

Long answer: When I first began playing WoW I would restrict myself to a couple hours of play per day. Eventually I got to the point where I said 'to heck with it' and kept playing, more often than not late into the night when I should have been sleeping. The more I played the more I wanted to play (always just one more dungeon, just one more item), and as time progressed the more I neglected my other obligations. One day I woke up and realized the situation I was in, bit the bullet, and uninstalled the game (I even sold my computer and didn't have a computer for a year, that was a VERY hard thing to do). Fortunately for me, my better judgement realized the toll that my indulgence was taking on my life, I made a quick assessment of my priorities, and took the step forward to begin exercising a bit of self-control. Without the self-control I could not have quit so easily. Sometimes people wake up and just don't have the self-control to change. These are ones who have the hardest time.

Short answer: My better judgement made a cost-benefit analysis and compelled me to be exercising self-control to quench the fire. I didn't quench the fire by indulging it even more until I reached the point where I was satisfied. As a matter of fact, the more I played, the less satisfied I became.

You have yet to explain how self-control and self-discipline are products of feeling secure. If you feel secure, how or why exactly does one control or discipline oneself?

I explain it over and over: because one does not feel a need to be out of control or without discipline when one has a sense of security.

Now I'm confused, that sentence just gave me a headache.

'because one does NOT feel a need to be OUT of control or WITHOUT discipline when one has a sense of security.'

So basicly, you're saing if I don't have enough of something, I consume until I have enough and begin to feel secure, and if I feel secure, then I will begin to control my appetite? If this were true, then I go back to the question: Why do people who have a virtually unlimited supply of food get fat from eating too much?

I think YOU are the one over-simplifying human behavior. *laughs*

 

[Novan Leon]

Another interesting device to discuss would be the Replicator. The replicator essentially creates physical objects out of energy. How would a replicator, and hence an unlimited supply of ANY OBJECT effect our society?

I think a Replicator would have more of a positive effect than a negative effect on society than the Holodeck would. I think the Holodeck, while having some positive effects, would have more of a negative impact over the long term than a simple Replicator would.

 

[Novan Leon]

Good question. Mind answering it? Have you discovered the line that applies to all children everywhere? Is it between the bike and the car? The yacht and the space shuttle? Where is that line? You say it exists--where is it?

I never said it exists, you did. You're the one that said there was a point where someone would have 'enough'.

Sorry--I was unclear. I meant to say where's the point where you would stop giving a kid things to produce self-discipline. You say there's one--where is it?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I wouldn't give a kid things to produce self-discipline, I would simply require that he show self-control for the things that are potentially harmful, like no sleep, shirking school work, etc. This is how you teach responsbility (ie. self-discipline) and good judgement.

I think your assuming that a healthy childhood is purely composed of having abundant physical resources.

I think you're undervaluing the importance of having physical needs met. Sometimes a person needs a hug, you know? Sometimes all the loving words in the world don't add up to one physical act of affection.

A physical act of AFFECTION. The child needs the affection, not necessarily the physical wrapping of the arms around him. A wrestler can wrap his arms around you and it hardly has the same effect. The physical act merely amplifies the emphasis on affection.

Self-mutilation and self-injury are always accompanied by a motive, whether it be self-hate, channeling stress, mental illness such as delusion, or following a cultural custom (such as tattooing). Self-mutilation does not happen (or VERY rarely happens) just for the sake of mutilating yourself ("Yay, mutilating myself is fun! I love mutilation!). At least not to the point where it's painful or truly harmful.

When did I say it happens 'just for the sake' of itself? I said:

"Number two, I think most people who engage in destructive behaviors like the ones you're describing do so *because* they're destructive."

You mentioned "self-hate." You don't see a connection between self-hate and selecting destructive behavior *because* it's destructive?

My misundestanding. I read your comments as 'being destructive for the sake of destruction'.

Your confused. Your thinking that because hard work requires a certain level of self control, harder work must always be the result of more self control. It doesn't work that way. Workaholics don't work just for the sake of working, they're driven by other motives, a lot like the self-mutilation example above.

I'd say they're driven by the motive to be in control.

That might be possible, but being in control and exercising self-control are two entirely different things. I've never heard of such a thing, but if hypothetically someone was obsessed with self-control, this itself would be a lack of self-control, since they're unable or unwilling to control thier obsession.

Long answer:

So why do people "wake up"? What triggers that event? Why does this "good judgment" lay dormant?

People usually wake up when they come to terms with thier growing insecurities, such as the guilt that comes from falling into excess and losing the 'important things' for the sake of a single indulgence. The 'important things' may include physical objects or not.

Good judgement can lay dormant for a number of reasons. You may not realize the effects that occur when you lose yourself in something like this, or you may think you can control it but can't, or you may just not care what happens as long as you get what you desire.

Short answer:

But you *were* indulging it even more, and you became less satisfied. I never said it had to be 'self-conscious acts of deliberate indulgence' I just said 'indulgence'.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Short answer from me: there have been times in my life where I was a lazy bum. There have been times in my life where I've worked incredibly hard. The only thing that changed were my physical surroundings and my feeling of empowerment. Nobody 'instilled' anything in me. I changed as my situation changed.

Well, I can't speak for you, but didn't your self-esteem begin to recover the moment you made the decision to get off your lazy butt and make a change? I'm sure you felt great when your physical surroundings began to improve, but I'd be willing to bet that your self-esteem began to recover as soon as you commited yourself to getting your act together, not the moment you bought your first flat-screen TV.

So basicly, you're saing if I don't have enough of something, I consume until I have enough and begin to feel secure, and if I feel secure, then I will begin to control my appetite? If this were true, then I go back to the question: Why do people who have a virtually unlimited supply of food get fat from eating too much?

'Virtually' unlimited isn't 'enough' for some people. 'Absolutley' unlimited would be for everyone. Same as 'getting a paycheck' is a much different psychological event than 'getting a raise' even if the change in income is equal in both events.

I don't see your point. Do you seriously believe that someone that makes $500 grand a year worries about food availability?

Wouldn't you agree that there's qualitative difference in the sense of empowerment one feels when one goes from 'no paycheck' to 'paycheck' that doesn't exist when one goes from 'smaller paycheck' to 'larger paycheck'? That's what I'm saying about a Holodeck--that it's more like the first time you earn money in a real job than it is when you get a raise if we're talking about empowering people and giving them a sense of security.

I hate to sound like I'm disagreeing just for the heck of it, but I really don't see much of a difference. As a matter of fact, thinking back, I felt much better going from a $15 an hour job to $32k a year job than I did going from no job to $15 an hour. I think this was mainly due to the feeling of accomplishment and hard work that came from working my butt off and FINALLY reaching a goal that I had been working towards for a long time. It took much less hard work to make $15 an hour than it did to get a salary position. I will admit though, the additional money didn't hurt either. However, I didn't come from a position of absolute poverty, that may play a role in it. That said, I still don't see how this makes your point.

Point being, exercising self-control in order to reach a goal is ALWAYS satisfying regardless of the monetary (ie. improving of physical surroundings) benefit.

I think the best way for you or I to prove our theory is to make a falsifiable prediction and see how it fills out. I predict that as America's prosperity continues to increase and physical conditions continue to improve, teen suicide, obesity, psychological problems and crime will continue to increase, population growth already taken into account. This is due to a growth in self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline. Self-control has already become stereotyped as 'uncool' among the more immature segment of our culture. The Holodeck would accelerate this entire process by an incredible amount.

 

[Novan Leon]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I wouldn't give a kid things to produce self-discipline, I would simply require that he show self-control for the things that are potentially harmful, like no sleep, shirking school work, etc. This is how you teach responsbility (ie. self-discipline) and good judgement.

But what about things that *aren't* harmful, like a bike or a car or a space shuttle? Where's the line? You say 'indulging a desire only makes it grow'. Well, where's the line? Is a bike okay but a car is an 'indulgence'? And if so, why?

I'm losing you. What exactly are you asking me again?

If you're obsessed with buying things, you have to draw a line at some point, the sooner the better. Where you draw that line is up to you.

A physical act of AFFECTION. The child needs the affection, not necessarily the physical wrapping of the arms around him.

Stuffed animals don't wrap their arms around you, yet kids get a lot of positive benefits from being able to hug teddy bears.

That's because the child loves the animal. Giving affection is just as important as recieving it in many cases.

I've never heard of such a thing, but if hypothetically someone was obsessed with self-control, this itself would be a lack of self-control, since they're unable or unwilling to control thier obsession.

This is the point I'm trying to get at--when you use the word 'self-control' you're actually talking about two things: control over self AND a sense of balance and proportion.

No. A sense of balance and proportion is good judgement. Self-control is being able to discipline yourself to meet the requirements that you set on yourself. If someone is a smoking addict, knows the negative effects, and doesn't care, there's no need for him to exercise self-control even though his judgement is sound.

How can someone without truly good self-esteem not 'care what happens'?

People who love to eat fatty foods and choose to do so even though they know it can lead to heart disease? There are so many examples of this... I won't begin to list them all here.

Besides, how does someone with 'good judgment' "not realize the effects that occur"? That...doesn't make any sense.

Because they've never experienced it before? Because they were never educated?

Well, I can't speak for you, but didn't your self-esteem begin to recover the moment you made the decision to get off your lazy butt and make a change? I'm sure you felt great when your physical surroundings began to improve, but I'd be willing to bet that your self-esteem began to recover as soon as you commited yourself to getting your act together, not the moment you bought your first flat-screen TV.

I *never* committed myself to getting my act together. As my physical surroundings improved and I felt empowered I just naturally became ridiculously productive. No commitment necessary.

So, it happend in this order:
1. you were lazy with low self-esteem
2. your physical surroundings improved (magically? how?)
3. you naturally became a hard worker (why?)

Point being, exercising self-control in order to reach a goal is ALWAYS satisfying regardless of the monetary (ie. improving of physical surroundings) benefit.

I totally disagree. I've reached goals through hard work and they have been totally unsatisfying.

I'm sorry, by 'satisfying' I mean to your 'self-esteem'. So you've reached goals through hard work and it resulted in hurting your self-esteem?

I think the best way for you or I to prove our theory is to make a falsifiable prediction and see how it fills out. I predict that as America's prosperity continues to increase and physical conditions continue to improve, teen suicide, obesity, psychological problems and crime will continue to increase, population growth already taken into account. This is due to a growth in self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline.

Okay--let's take women's orgasms. Technology has made it possible for women to have more regular, more frequent, stronger, and more varied orgasms. Has 'indulging that appetite' stoked it? Is the demographic of women who own sex toys doing worse than the demographic that doesn't?

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly knowledgable in this area but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy generally have a lower self-esteem and less overall satisfaction (in spite of the increased physical pleasure) than a woman who's in a relationship with a human being.

Self-control has already become stereotyped as 'uncool' among the more immature segment of our culture. The Holodeck would accelerate this entire process by an incredible amount.

As one would expect. However, I say what makes them immature is not that they have stereotyped self-control as 'uncool', it's that they've done nothing to offer a better alternative.

I am. :-D

Ok, so other than biting the bullet and forcing myself to eat better/eat less/and exercise more, what's your alternative solution to my growing obesity?

Oh, and we can leave out obesity as an indicator of anything but a public health problem. The idea that any society-wide problem with obesity is a moral failing, OR that America's prosperity has anything to do with the problem is a bunch of horsesh*t. (
(note: the Cabinet failing to tackle obesity link is broken.)

You're seriously going to tell me that:

"self-indulgence prompted by an increased access to whatever happens fill our desires, in conjunction with a consistent de-emphasis on self-control and self-discipline."

is the problem when the friggin' FRENCH are in better shape than the Germans?

I'm sorry, I lost your train of thought.

You seem to think that because X causes Y, Y*2 equals X*2, when it's possible that Y can also be caused by A, B, C and D just as well. The French could be in better shape than the Germans because of diet, genetics or many other things. I'll be kind and assume you realize this, so I'll just have to state that I'm not sure what the point of your question was.

You know, I'd be really interested to hear what anyone else reading this debate happens to think. How do you think society would react to the invention of a Holodeck, that is, a virtually unlimited supply of anything at our disposal. Would you side more with Cheese_Pavilion's point of view or mine?

A few more posts maybe but I'm about done with this topic. It feels like we're going in circles.

 

[Echolocating]

It's interesting, but ultimately... holodecks won't cater to our every desire. All the satisfaction gained would begin and end within it; there will always be the real world to contend with... and guess what? The real world doesn't like you very much. ;-)

Cheeze, do you honestly believe that a holodeck would satisfy people's cravings, leading to a near-utopian society?

 

[Arbre]

Cheeze, do you honestly believe that a holodeck would satisfy people's cravings, leading to a near-utopian society?

After talking with Novan Leon, I think it would be better to say that it would short-circuit our cravings more than satisfy them. I think that's closer to my point.

Think of this aspect of it--horny young people. Guys who like girls--most of them--never get to play with girls enough when they're 18-25. Imagine if they had a Holodeck where they could explore sexuality to their heart's content. Imagine how much nicer of a world it would be if guys that age weren't walking around horny all the time.

With little boundaries. And when said guy would return to real life, depending on the state of society and values, he may quickly return into his cube and die there, fiddling with holovaginas.

The real stuff is much more interesting. There are limits, and from these limits come the appetite.
That's the point of sexy clothes. It's a game of tease.

If one wants to live a life of tyrant in his holospace, then so be it, but he'll be limited to this very sad confined space.

 

[Echolocating]

Why wouldn't they have boundaries? Just because they're used to getting their way? That's silly--in real life people who get their way a lot aren't necessarily any more likely to have little in the way of boundaries.

It's not silly. The decisions you make in the holodeck (which you claim would short-circuit real world cravings) don't have real world consequences. Less boundaries, Cheeze.

Maybe I'm just built different everyone else--my appetites are my appetites, and limits and tease have nothing to do with them. I've always found it...immature to be turned on by the tease. I don't mean any disrespect by that, I just never understood the allure of forbidden fruit, be it nekkidness, sex, alcohol, anything like that.

I think you need to smoke a big fatty, dude. ;-)

 

[Arbre]

With little boundaries.

Why wouldn't they have boundaries? Just because they're used to getting their way? That's silly--in real life people who get their way a lot aren't necessarily any more likely to have little in the way of boundaries.

Silly?
It's the holodeck. You want, you get.
You can be God in your holodeck.

And when said guy would return to real life, depending on the state of society and values, he may quickly return into his cube and die there, fiddling with holovaginas.

Dude, if someone is capable of fiddling their life away with holovaginas, chances are they weren't going to do anything special with their lives anyway. Not really a loss in my book.

I don't see why you seem to rise a problem here.

There are limits, and from these limits come the appetite.
That's the point of sexy clothes. It's a game of tease.

See, I've never found sexy clothes sexy because they were a tease. What makes sexy clothes sexy is the same thing that makes fashionable clothes fashionable--they look good on a person.

There still is a difference between plain sexy clothes (which can look good as well), and clothes which, well, just look good. You can look good in ceremonial clothes which don't allow for much sexual teasing.

Now, to get to the point, the message of a bum squeezed in a tight jean or miniskirt is rather clear. Especially in the case of the skirt, you know the sinful fruit is just there, but hehe, you can only see a sample (top of the legs), but that's just a trial version.
It's a game of hypocrisy about toeing the line. It's "hello, I'm underneath those clothes, but you're not allowed to see me in full".
In other words, a tease.
There's nothing immature here. It's sexual implication by playing with the values and restrictions of a society.