133: The First Steps to the Holodeck

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Maybe we've got our signals crossed--what's the problem with there being "little boundaries" on a Holodeck? We have "little boundaries" in our imaginations, so, what's the big deal?
No, my point was that when enjoying the near zero boundaries of the holodeck, I may develop an addiction and find the real word too difficult and complex.
Now, I don't care much, because initially this topic only made sense when talking about near future volumetric imaging tech, not Star Trek BS.

Yeah, see, I've never been much into tight jeans or miniskirts or not getting to see what I want in full if that's what I want. I find sexy clothes are sexy because they *look* sexy, not because they hide anything. Sorry, but, I still find the 'forbidden fruit' attitude towards sex a defect of living in a society as messed up about sex as ours is.

I'll take a flattering-but-loose pair of jeans and a cute skirt that comes down to the knees over what you're talking about any day.
Well... ok. Then...



;)
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Arbre said:
No, my point was that when enjoying the near zero boundaries of the holodeck, I may develop an addiction and find the real word too difficult and complex.
People still climb mountains even though you can take a helicopter to the top. Why would a Holodeck be any different?
This is not an inappropriate example.
These people like the challenge of the task, which is irrelevant to your point a couple of posts above.
My point was precisely aimed at those hypothetical people who'd find refuge in the holodeck to cater to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers.
On the other hand, if people prefer real life challenges, then there's much less point going into the holodeck. Especially as they know it's fake.
I believe there would still be a pride in obtaining the *real stuff*.
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
Echolocating said:
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.
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Again--I say that logic is faulty. Boundaries for stuff like that comes from the respect one has developed for other humans, not from being rejected. If anything I think being rejected, not being able to get one's needs met breeds low, vile people who look on boundaries as what is holding them back, and therefore something to be crossed.
I'm saying a virtual world has less boundaries when compared to the real world. Yet, you say my logic is faulty. I don't know why you're arguing that point, unless you're giving the term "boundaries" a different meaning in this context. What are you talking about?

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I think a lot of the problems with our world can be traced to the attitude that boundaries=consequences. That's why there's so much date rape and rape of people who are intoxicated or imprisoned. Boundaries constructed on consequences fall apart in consequence-free situations like the ones I'm talking about that exist right now and have nothing to do with a Holodeck. Boundaries should be a product of a sense of respect for others. I fail to see how consequences are a part of that.
Um, boundaries do exist because of consequences... or even perceived consequences. When we cross those boundaries, we are met with consequences... or is that logic faulty as well?

-----

Back to the idea you brought up earlier, Cheeze, about giving people everything they could ever want would somehow benefit society... there are documented cases of this in our world today; they're called spoiled, rich brats. ;-)
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Arbre said:
My point was precisely aimed at those hypothetical people who'd find refuge in the holodeck to cater to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers.
On the other hand, if people prefer real life challenges, then there's much less point going into the holodeck. Especially as they know it's fake.
I believe there would still be a pride in obtaining the *real stuff*.
But there's a problem with your logic there--if a person can't satisfy a desire in real life, how will a Holodeck effect whether or not they get the pride that comes from obtaining "the *real stuff*"?
Seriously--what's the problem for people having a device that 'caters' "to the desires they couldn't satisfy because of real life limitations and barriers"? If they weren't going to accomplish that stuff in real life, what's the issue with letting them accomplish it on a Holodeck?

What's wrong with giving "refuge" to people who have a reason to be 'refugees'?
It depends pretty much on the reasons you go inside. You probably only saw the positive ones, while after citing good reasons to play with holorooms (the possible tech), I tackled the question of the holodeck from a more negative point of view, which is about psychological disorder and addiction.
Mainly because the point you raised was about people spending most of their time, say life, inside a holodeck.

The thing is, not everybody would carve for real life challenges, and they wouldn't agree on the nature and difficulty of said challenges.
Some will look for very hard targets, other for easier ones. Some won't bother.

It's precisely those who will find little interest in the real life challenge, and even, maybe, mock them, making an excuse as the human intelligence was the tool which would one day bring us the holodeck, who would willfully get inside the holodeck.

There are plenty of reasons, now, why one would get into a holodeck. Some of these reasons might be similar to yours, others drastically different than yours.

- Liberty. A limitless exploration. Depending on the nature of your goal, the moral values you're ready to transgress, your activity inside the holodeck could be considered fun, enjoyable, peaceful, near meditative, or violent, deviant, perverted, etc. That said, you don't really require the holodeck, you could live like anyone outside of it, but either by curiosity or because psychologically, you don't feel strong enough to certain things in real life, you go into the holodeck.

- Physical handicap. You want to do something which your body forbids (including brain related limitations). The holodeck may become a solution.

- Homo-negation. Being tired of the human nature. A complete different mindset, which looks towards freeing one's mind from the flesh as much as possible. A real evolution, good or bad I can't tell, in the way a human would think. Frankly, that's more SF stuff and Kusanagi style mindset.

- Addiction. In a holodeck where you can get anything you want, some people might get intoxicated and loose their lives inside an environment where everything is easy, new, extremely dynamic and easily shaped. Whatever the initial reasons were, at this point, you're returning into the holodeck because you have simply developped an addiction to the system.
Look at the amount of people turning into vegetables and getting stuck playing hours of FPSes or inside MMOs.
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
Echolocating said:
I'm saying a virtual world has less boundaries when compared to the real world.
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Right, I thought you and Arbre were saying something different. I just...don't see the importance of pointing that out. A world with ships has less boundaries on a planet with oceans like ours--what's the point?
The point was not initially mine; it was Arbre's and I was merely agreeing with him after you said it was a silly notion (which obviously it wasn't). So you might want to ask him if you want that specific answer.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I think there's a world of difference between not harming someone because you respect other humans, and not harming someone because you'll go to jail if you do.
I think you're completely right on that one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say jail doesn't deter anything. It basically comes down to morality... which was why I supported the "less boundaries" comment from before. Holodecks would allow us to explore very immersive, alternative moralities.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
This is my point--everyone disagreeing with me saying 'but human nature...' has arguments that are full of these kinds of huge mistakes about human nature. If you think 'spoiled brats' are produced by *how* much you give a kid and not *why* you give it to them, well, I can see why you disagree with me: you've got some fundamental mistakes about human nature at the root of your thinking.
I don't know if I have fundamental mistakes in my thinking about human nature or not. In the scenario of someone having everything they could want... are you so sure that we can actually be satisfied and not want anymore? The grass is always greener, I think.
 

Novan Leon

New member
Dec 10, 2007
187
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Novan Leon said:
I'm losing you. What exactly are you asking me again?
If indulging appetites only stokes their flames, according to that logic, you shouldn't give a kid a bike OR a car if they want it.

What I'm trying to show is that if you truly subscribe to the idea that indulging a desire only leads to it growing, following that to its logical conclusion means living the life of a monk. You may think you're advocating balance, but you're actually advocating asceticism.
But we're not talking about a child with unlimited resources (or ANY resources at all for that matter) and no self-control. As long as there are boundaries set, monetary or otherwise, giving a kid a bike shouldn't cause any harm.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
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.
Giving *physical* affection is important. If giving affection was equally important whether you 'indulged' the appetite for touch or not, then talking to the stuffed animal would always be as effective as actually embracing it.
Children DO talk to thier stuffed animals. Physical touch DOES enhance the act of giving affection, I never said it didn't, but the affection is the prerequisite, the physical touch is the afterthought. I think we can agree that physical touch does add a lot to the human experience.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Cheese_Pavilion said:
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.
List all you want--you still haven't listed a person that necessarily has truly good self-esteem. Just people with medical knowledge.
Well I have no way to prove to you whether someone has good self-esteem or not, so this point is dead.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
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 then they don't have 'good' judgment, do they?
I think your confusing knowledge with judgement. I can make a good judgement with poor knowledge and result in a poor outcome. That's why education and experience are so important. Maybe "judgement" is the wrong word but I can't think of an alternative at the moment.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
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.
I never said I was talking about "women who's primary source of sexual satisfaction is a toy." Don't try and stack the deck just to make your arguments look stronger. Maybe you made an honest mistake here, but, now that I've drawn you attention to it, you know that there are women "in a relationship with a human being" who also have access to sex toys.
If we're talking about women who are in a relationship who also have toys, how does your point carry any weight? Having the toy alone wouldn't destroy a womans self-esteem, and I never claimed it would.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
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?
Get healthier bacteria in your gut--check those links about the disease theory of obesity.
How do I get healthier bacteria in my gut? Your point loses all water unless you can show that the process to lose weight is effortless. Even if it just takes a little effort, it will require some self-control.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
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.
I think you lost my train of thought like Nixon lost minutes on those tapes or Ollie North lost his ability to recall ;-D
No, your arguments just honestly don't make much sense to me. Our minds are just working on totally different wavelengths.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
edit: You don't have to be kind, you just have to be fair. If you're saying that the difference between the French and the Germans could be "many other things" then you shouldn't be going on about stuff like:

"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."

unless you've eliminated, as you said, "A, B, C and D" whenever you offer evidence in support of your own "predictions" (technically they'd be retrodictions, but you know what I mean)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander :-D
You can never take into account every variable when making a prediction, all you can do is make a broad enough of a prediction so that it should be impacted as little as possible by other variables. The fact that all these occurences are increasing (and I predict will continue to increase) while thier physical environment continues to improve is all I need to prove my point.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
A few more posts maybe but I'm about done with this topic. It feels like we're going in circles.
We can end with your next response if you want. I think I've made my points about as well as I'm going to make them.
Yeah. Feel free to respond but, for the most part, I've made my point.
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Arbre said:
Look at the amount of people turning into vegetables and getting stuck playing hours of FPSes or inside MMOs.
And yet civilization shows no signs of collapsing.
I claimed civilization collapse when?
I see arguments stretching for no real reason than you trying to win - not even make - a point.
I'm afraid I've said all I had to on this topic.
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
Echolocating said:
It basically comes down to morality... which was why I supported the "less boundaries" comment from before. Holodecks would allow us to explore very immersive, alternative moralities.
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
"I thought the fact it was a virtual world would make the acts I engaged in less real, less impactful. I thought I could play in Sociolotron for a while and not be affected by what I'd done or was done to me. I was wrong." [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_114/1474-Sociolotron-How-the-Other-Half-Plays.4]

We're already there.
Possibly, but the main difference is that in a holodeck, even the people are artificial. In the Sociolotron, would Russ Pitts have been affected if Phil was simply an algorithm? I think the part that creeped Russ out was that is a was a real human being on the other end. Again, holodecks provide convincing environments with fewer boundaries... whatever that means. ;-)
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
Echolocating said:
Possibly, but the main difference is that in a holodeck, even the people are artificial. In the Sociolotron, would Russ Pitts have been affected if Phil was simply an algorithm? I think the part that creeped Russ out was that is a was a real human being on the other end. Again, holodecks provide convincing environments with fewer boundaries... whatever that means. ;-)
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
In a sense then, maybe a Holodeck is an even less 'convincing environment' than something like Sociolotron from certain standpoints? Maybe the boundary of 'this is simply an algorithm and not a real human being on the other end' is more limiting a boundary than the ones a Holodeck (in single player campaign) would eliminate?
I've been using the term "boundary" to reflect the constraints (physical or self-imposed) that the real world offers as opposed to the virtual holodeck world. I don't really understand how you're defining boundary now... or why you're trying to possibly redefine it. Are you saying that the knowledge that this virtual character isn't real is an obstacle to being fully convinced?

I think the goal of a holodeck should be to suspend one's disbelief in a fully interactive, "seemingly real" environment; not trick them into thinking they are in the real world.
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
Echolocating said:
I've been using the term "boundary" to reflect the constraints (physical or self-imposed) that the real world offers as opposed to the virtual holodeck world. I don't really understand how you're defining boundary now...
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
A constraint (virtual) that the Holodeck offers as opposed to the real world. Just saying that maybe the idea of boundaries doesn't all go one way.
So... in a holodeck, what are some examples of these boundaries you speak of? ..and what importance do they have on bettering our society?
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Umm...see comment 95?
Okay...
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
In a sense then, maybe a Holodeck is an even less 'convincing environment' than something like Sociolotron from certain standpoints? Maybe the boundary of 'this is simply an algorithm and not a real human being on the other end' is more limiting a boundary than the ones a Holodeck (in single player campaign) would eliminate?
...I guess I just don't see why "knowing that something doesn't exist while in an environment that doesn't exist" is a crucial point to make.

Moving on...

-----

What would you do if you had a holodeck, Cheeze?