Futurology, Minds, Philosophy, Politics, SciFi, Technology, Transhumanism

Sufficient technology

Let’s hypothesise sufficient brain scans. As far as I know, we don’t have better than either very low resolution full-brain imaging (millions of synapses per voxel), or very limited high resolution imaging (thousands of synapses total), at least not for living brains. Let’s just pretend for the sake of argument that we have synapse-resolution full-brain scans of living subjects.

What are the implications?

  • Is a backup of your mind protected by the right to avoid self-incrimination? What about the minds of your pets?
  • Does a backup need to be punished (e.g. prison) if the person it is made from is punished? What if the offence occurred after the backup was made?
  • If the mind state is running rather than offline cold-storage, how many votes do all the copies get? What if they’re allowed to diverge? Which of them is allowed to access the bank accounts or other assets of the original? Is the original entitled to money earned by the copies?
  • If you memorise something and then get backed up, is that copyright infringement?
  • If a mind can run on silicon for less than the cost of food to keep a human healthy, can anyone other than the foremost mind in their respective field ever be employed?
  • If someone is backed up then the original is killed by someone who knows the person was backed up, is that murder, or is it the equivalent of a serious assault that causes a small duration of amnesia?
Standard
Minds, Psychology, Science

Hypothesise first, test later

Brought to you by me noticing that when I watch Kristen Bell playing an awful person in The Good Place, I feel as stressed as when I have to consciously translate to or from German in real-life situations and not just language apps.

Idea:

  • System 2 thinking (effortful) is stressful to the mind in the same way that mild exercise is stressful to the body.
  • Having to think in system 2 continuously is sometimes possible, but how long for is not a universal constant.
  • Social interactions are smoothed by being able to imagine what other people are thinking.
  • If two minds think in different ways, one or both has to use system 2 thinking to forecast the other. Autistic and neurotypical minds are one of many possible examples in the human realm. Cats and dogs are a common non-human example (“Play! Bark!” “Arg, big scary predator! Hiss!”)
  • Stress makes personal touches and eye contact unpleasant.

Implications:

Autistic people will be:

  • Much less stressed when they are only around other autistic people.
  • Look each other in the eye.
  • Be comfortable hugging each other.
  • Less likely than allistic people to watch soap operas.
  • Jokes based on mind state will not transfer, but puns will. (The opposite of the German-English joke barrier, as puns don’t translate but The Ministry Of Silly Walks does).
  • Reality shows will make no sense, and be somewhere between comedic and confusing in the same way as memes based on “type XYZ and let autocomplete finish the sentence!”

Questions:

  • How to interests, e.g. sports, music, painting, fit into this?
  • Does “gender” work like this? Memes such as “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” or men finding women confusing and unpredictable come to mind. Also, men’s clubs are a thing, as are women’s. Also the existence of transgender people would pattern-match here. That said, it might just be a cultural barrier, because any group can have a culture and culture is not merely a synonym for political geography.
Standard
Psychology

Must we laugh to change our mind?

What’s long, hard, and something that men are unjustifiably proud of?

If someone is Wrong™, it’s really hard to get them to change their mind. If you just tell them, by default you will come across as a rude, mean, or contemptible person. If someone is looking for critique, they might listen… but, looking at the history of humans investigating reality, most people seem to want validation (or confirmation) rather than real tests.

A negative stimuli easily trains minds to dislike whatever they’re experiencing at the time they get experience that stimuli, for example the expert telling them “no”.

If laughter turns bad situations into good ones, might it turn a negative “no” into a positive “no”? Might it be that, rather than mere sadistic inverse-empathy, it is a way to learn from someone else’s mistakes when one laughs at, for example, “Ha ha, you should’ve see their face when they slipped on the floor and their beer went everywhere!”?

However, this doesn’t help with giving someone feedback; mocking someone for their mistakes is another way to make them dislike you even when you’re correct, so it does no good to — say — make fun of Trump’s hair, Bush’s bushisms, or David Davis not knowing that Holland and Czechoslovakia are not countries: “Stop mocking us!” is the gist of the responses of the former and the latter (and in retrospect it’s remarkable that Bush took such things in his stride).

What sort of humour, if any, makes mistakes (and negative feedback) palatable? And is there any way to make them palatable without humour? Is laughter a necessary precondition to changing a mind?

“Laughing with”, rather than “laughing at”? That might work for requested feedback — “Tell me a joke about something that went wrong with $thing” — but how do you reach someone who doesn’t even realise they went wrong?

I think that’s what embarrassment is for, but what’s the border between embarrassment and the sort of resentment that Trump and Brexit ministers demonstrate (something which I don’t even have a word for)?

Jokes can certainly make you think, but do you have to be open to thinking for them to help you along, or do they work anyway if they’re done right?


And the punchline? It’s opinions: men have long-winded opinions that are hard to change and which we’re unjustifiably proud of.

Standard