What could you possibly view us as? I suppose you could make a kind of abstract statement like we are just characters, concepts and behaviours ... but what does that mean?

Something analogous to Plutarch's resolution of the Ship of Theseus problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Proposed_resolutions).

The world is just fundamental units of matter and energy (and maybe some other things). Everything we overlay on top of it is just a model we impose to try to make sense of it. I could, for example, model you as krinid the person, a consistent, continuous, and coherent arrangement of matter with semi-predictable behavior; this would allow me to extend inferences (e.g., you seem to view me as someone doing the right thing but presenting myself poorly) through leaps of logic into character traits (e.g., you are kind, not interested in sparking conflict, and willing to view people in positive lights) that attempt to predict your behavior across time.

Like naming a river, though, this model runs into problems. For one, there's the asymmetric insight problem- your "Michael Moore" model of "me" as a person does not comport with other behavior ("I" sometimes do take advantage of people and evidently present "myself" extremely well in the process). It also misses nuances that I'm aware of that you don't appear to know of- the "Michael Moore" thing is presently somewhat deliberate. If I come across as "a jerk who's right" [my oversimplification, not your words], that's a wildly beneficial model that I can take advantage of because you're likely predisposed to respond to errors and missteps as merely failures of presentation and try to fit new statements into your model of me being right but bad at getting my points across. This results in charitable behavior where you consciously and unconsciously reframe what I say very charitably; at scale, this means I can get across different messages to different people, all of whom would interpret what I'm saying differently but with the bias of aligning their interpretation with what they find most agreeable. Compare your reaction to the borderline-sociopathic statements i make (expressions of curiosity and assumptions of good faith) with nonolet's and Parsifal's (who interpret them as me exposing myself or digging a hole, because their model of l4v.r0v the person predisposes them to interpret my statements uncharitably). Your tendency in this conversation to model me as a person is an exploitable behavior, once I'm able to infer the model. (Of course, I don't actually try to exploit "you" here, since this strategy presupposes the model of krinid the person.)

Beyond these pragmatic issues, you run into something analogous to the Ship of Theseus paradox & fundamental attribution error. E.g., the models someone reading this thread would build of "nonolet the person" or "Parsifal the person" or "Bane the person" or "Cursona the person" or "Ursus the person" would often fail to predict their behavior elsewhere and occasionally break on edge cases and weird thought experiments. All of these "people" display behavior consistent with kindness, empathy, and sincerity in many other places. Parsifal in this thread displays a tendency to periodically jump in only to put others down; Parsifal in his Warzone Idle guide behaves rather differently. Parsifal, the collection of minds that believes they're a person, has sufficient information to model this well and reconcile these discrepancies; I don't, and neither do most other observers- so if we tried to figure out "Parsifal," we'd just get it wrong and converge to confidence too fast (see: nonolet).

When trying to reconcile these models, it's easy to fall back on "well, humans are complex." But, like adding epicycles to the geocentric model of our solar system, you'd just be adding more complex (and brittle) elements to your model of "humans" to try and salvage its predictive value. Instead, my answer is: "well, humans aren't real. Model something else."

So, finally responding to your question- the question is flawed. I don't view "you" as anything, because "you" aren't krinid. You're many minds, playing different roles at different times, and especially on online spaces like this one I know so little about the similarities between these minds that I can't hope to coherently figure out who "you" are. In this domain, instead of trying to model "you" as a "who," it makes sense to model these interactions with "you" separately. In other words, the model I impose here is not of humans but of conversations. This makes things like reputation moot.

It's really hard because these notions of people and consistent beings are built most likely not just into our language- we don't differentiate between "you" as in the entity perceiving this right now and "you" as in this notion of a long-lived person- but also into how our minds operate. Modeling people also has had strong evolutionary advantages, like allowing the development of concepts like trust and reputation to inflict some sort of accountability that can only be coherently expressed if framed in terms of people. In general, these limitations make it hard to convey the concepts I wish to convey, because language and thought themselves assume I'm wrong.

One solution to this has been the high-anonymity/zero-identity model of image boards like 4chan. My approach is to just not bother pretending I can understand "you," and to err on the side of responding directly and transparently without regard for how "you" might view me- because the massive benefits of the model are outweighed by educational costs. (I won't claim to be good at this. I've certainly unconsciously built models of all these "people" and they have those side effects, like contempt.)

Edited 10/15/2021 23:01:30

Tbh, I think that's just a long-winded way of agreeing with me, differing really only in terms of what we call the constructs being discussed. (;

Study the parts, study the whole, can't predict reliably, some parts contradict, can't explain the whole thing, numerous outliers but you're still talking about people/humans/identities and interactions between them.

As for the ship of Theseus - what's your take on that? All parts replaced, is it still the same thing? My take - if there's no difference from the original, it looks the same, it functions the same, etc, then it doesn't actually matter if it's the same or not, so I cast that question to the wind, but would argue that what's truly important is that regardless of whichever answer to that question people individually and personally believe, we're all best off treating/using/handling/etc the object the same way as we did the original. And if it turns out to start behaving differently, well then one of those parts likely wasn't an exact replacement and thus renders the circumstance void.

what's your take on that? All parts replaced, is it still the same thing?

The ship isn't real. The apparent paradox comes from trying to apply a model onto a world where the (uniqueness, consistency) assumptions of the model no longer hold. For some practical cases, it makes sense to say both are the "ship"; for others, it makes sense to say neither; and for yet others, you can pick either of the two. It depends on why you created the "ship" in your mind instead of just letting atoms be atoms.

And if it turns out to start behaving differently, well then one of those parts likely wasn't an exact replacement and thus renders the circumstance void.

IOW, you understand that the question is one of pragmatism, not truth. We say it's the same ship if it predicts the same behavior within the context we care about. If not, then we abandon the prior model.

Edited 10/15/2021 23:50:10

Who else on WZ provides such detailed and entertaining responses? lol

You've basically just agreed with me while presenting it as a materially different answer. Maybe you don't feel comfortable committing to full agreement b/c my response wasn't sufficiently fleshed out.

You've basically just agreed with me while presenting it as a materially different answer

Not really, there's metaphysical distinctions between how you categorize the world and how I do. Functionally, our models would lead to mostly the same behavior. But, for example, your belief that people exist makes concepts like "death" more meaningful. Whereas in my worldview, death isn't real: I have no particular reason to believe that I am actually the same "person" that last responded to you on this forum thread. For all I know, that person already ceased to exist, and I'm only functionally indistinguishable from them (roughly same memory, etc.), with the continuity of consciousness across time just being a trick my mind plays on itself.

I think the difference in our approach is somewhat subtle, in that it boils down to value judgements on the relative importance of things. If there's really a ship of Theseus, then something is lost when we set it on fire. However, if we say the ship exists in our head as shorthand for a rough arrangement of matter, then nothing is lost when the ship is destroyed. The ship was just a name we gave to an apparent persistent arrangement, one that really did not have the consistency or coherence that we arbitrarily imagined it to have (for pragmatic reasons). The only thing that changes is our ability to form the same model again in our heads, but the ship didn't cease to exist.

Does that make sense? My way of framing the world makes certain concepts- like the innate value of human life- essentially meaningless (in that there's nothing special about death from the perspective of the purported entity that "dies'; all that happens is that we the observers can no longer make the same predictive claims about that bundle of atoms).

Edited 10/16/2021 00:11:17

What you said makes sense, but it also has no purpose. Sure, you can quantify things that way, but where's the value in it? While I can't prove it true or false that are or aren't the same being on construct that last replied to me - it doesn't matter and everyone is better often just treating you as if you are.

There is loss if the ship burns. You can't sail on it anymore (or at least you need to rebuild or replace it or another vessel of some kind). Now if you say you never really were riding it anyhow, and the sea is just another meaningless construct of atoms, then why discuss anything at all? It's basically a method of saying "in this context nothing has any meaning", and what value do you gain from that perspective?

Sure, you can quantify things that way, but where's the value in it? While I can't prove it true or false that are or aren't the same being on construct that last replied to me - it doesn't matter and everyone is better often just treating you as if you are.

The value is in framing things pragmatically rather than in terms of what's real or not. If we only believe in a human "right to life" because it's pragmatic, then there are now pragmatic cases where we can disregard that right to life without risking the harms that the "right to life" exists to prevent. E.g., in a very over-simplified way, if we have the norm that killing is wrong because we want to make sure we ourselves don't get killed, then it's safe(-ish) to deviate from that norm and allow killing in cases where we can do so without risking being killed ourselves in return. Alternatively, if we adopt another framing (like "natural rights" of "people") for explaining why we don't kill people, we arrive at different results.

You know how people make different decisions based on their interpretation of "the meaning of life", even though they functionally refer to the same concept? This works the same way- it's the "meaning of people."

You can't sail on it anymore (or at least you need to rebuild or replace it or another vessel of some kind).

This loss only matters if you placed value on being able to sail on it in the first place. This valuing is arbitrary and subjective; you gain or lose many things if atoms change their arrangement.

what value do you gain from that perspective?

There's plenty of practical applications of reframing the situation, like the one that triggered this conversation: my behavior in this thread. I believe ignoring the existence of people can sometimes lead to better outcomes by allowing you to refocus on systemic causes and tweaking the structure, not the agents currently inhabiting its roles. Going back to the "meaning of people" framing, it boils down to how special you think individuals are- the more you think people's stable, unique differences* matter, the more it makes sense to attribute outcomes of events to the people involved rather than the impersonal, overarching factors in play. It doesn't matter whether nonolet is nonolet, for example; what matters is only the role nonolet plays.

* Are snowflakes special or merely unique? That's a value judgement, and the same sort of value judgement I make here about people.

Edited 10/16/2021 00:39:57

I love Lavrov's worldview; it's concise and allows no bullshit hahaha. Seems to lack a little joy though! (or maybe, no value is assigned to joy!)
I thinks his points about the transparency of sanctions and regulatory behaviour are pretty bang on - but so are the points about online pile-ons. Maybe it's important that the community as a whole can have a wider understanding of the issue AND ALSO remain as civil (but not humourless) as possible. I'm glad the parties involved (with the glaring exception of Mr Lavrov) have largely sorted it out between themselves. Great thread people.

You go pretty far out of your way to not agree with people. lol

Snowflakes are special in specific contexts only (where being unique matters), and the rest of the time they are pretty plain, but still unique. That's my value judgement, and I suspect many will disagree.

These responses are very pretentious
All these things can be said in a short manner

Less words = More words

@Cacao
Yes of course, but he's being pretentious on purpose. That's the image he wants to us to see.

Calling someone pretentious is pretty pretentious
You are pointing out that someone is trying to make the letters that are forming the words that you are reading with your own eyes have more value than they have. You are literally pointing out someone purposely using certain words to elongate their word count and sentence length.

Very cringe

Must be from California. I hear they look down on us (I think there's a more pretentious word for that, do you know what it is?).

Pompous

@krinid: i think we functionally agree in most regards, just not the important one: when I said "I don't view most of you as human," I mean that in terms of human worth. I don't think you view human worth through the same lens.

Going back to the original motivation for this discussion, I meant that I have no concern about perceptions of me among those whose existence my worldview doesn't value. To put it quite crudely: Would you care about what a duck thinks of you? You think I keep popping in here to try to do the right thing for the community, but my own belief is that most of this (excluding present conversation) is more akin to toying with belligerent ducks (not referring to people as ducks but comparing some interactions to interactions with ducks).

In that context, sure, most of us aren't human to each other, ie: of the same value as other people in our lives (IRL). Interactions with online folks is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of one's life. 2 years from now, any discussions had here will have been long forgotten and not impacted our lives in any way except perhaps consuming time. (Maybe it might cause some divorces? Kratt?). Yet here we all are, being fervent in our communication as it actually stands for something.

As for ducks ... I might care what a duck thinks of me. I might specifically even want ducks to have a specific impression of me. I might want them to fear me & my house, not b/c I am mean b/c I want them to stay the hell away from my front lawn on garbage day so they don't rip apart my garbage bags.

(But that's not the real question you're asking).

(But that's not the real question you're asking).

(No, but it's a better answer).

the diarrhea of words won't stop. expect shortages of toilet paper on the supermarket shelves

So he burnt hundreds of coins to other players.
I am shocked Kratt allows such people to be in his clan.

@Balthromaw: Technically, Kratt doesn't allow anyone to be in his clan. As Martin Niemoller would have said:

First he purged the inactives, and I did not speak out—because I was not inactive.

Then he purged the players who competed for other clans, and I did not speak out— because I was not competing for another clan.

Then he purged the players who got into mod trouble, and I did not speak out—because I was not in mod trouble.

Then he purged me—and there was no one left in the clan.