Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Laws of Fun (2009)

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#41

Post by twodave »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #34
Xcelerate wrote: post #12

I’ve thought about this idea of what would make for a desirable utopia, and I can’t avoid the fact that either you would die at some point (which creates suffering due to the anticipation of the event) or live forever, which actually seems more horrific in a way — how could you possibly not go crazy after living trillions of years and thinking about the next trillion? The only real solution is to alter the human brai…

There's quite a bit of evidence that meaning is what makes one happy. Pleasure is a very tiny component. Avoiding suffering doesn't guarantee you gain meaning. Suffering can diminish happiness, but one can be happy while suffering. This is not because one enjoys suffering, but because one is able to see it as having a purpose. Drug addiction and other addictive behaviors can be linked back to self-medicating processe…

So true. I've experienced more than my share of addiction, and the dopamine hits, while intense, only bring momentary pleasure. Instead of happiness, feelings of shame are often the result.

Fortunately there are many things out there that both bring happiness and pleasure. But the pleasure happens at the appropriate time and place. For instance.

1. The high one experiences during or after strenuous exercise.

2. The satisfaction of a job well done (whether physical labor or not).

3. The feeling of relief after going through a difficult time.

4. Even sex, when it results from genuine emotional/spiritual connection with a spouse.

These things all involve a moderate-to-severe degree of pain. Yes, even the fourth one. It is hard to trust another person with our own personal darkness.

Those things (drugs, eating, shopping, porn, etc.) that attempt to isolate and repeat just the reward/pleasure sensations experienced in life not only cheapen the experience, but limit our capacity to enjoy real life fully.

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#42

Post by gjm11 »

chris_st wrote: post #23

> 2. [...] Again, consider Christian Heaven: singing hymns doesn't sound like loads of endless fun, but you're supposed to enjoy praying, so no one can point this out. Clearly written by someone who's either never been to church, or goes to a boring one :-) If you've ever been to a fantastic (rock, jazz, whatever) concert, you know the amazing feeling of being caught up with others in the excitement of a shared music…

The author of the OP is a Jewish atheist, so indeed probably hasn't attended a lot of Christian church services.

I think "you may need to shop around" is too strong. A churchgoer may care about other things besides whether the music at their church is exciting to them, and it's not obvious that they should prioritize excitement over (say) theological agreement, or strength of community, or what if anything the church does outside its services.

The white robes arguably do come from the biblical account. Revelation 7:9: "After this ... behold, a great multitude which no man could number ... clothed in white robes". This is describing specifically "they who have come out of the great tribulation", so it may not be meant to apply to everyone there, but there are a whole lot of other white robes in Revelation.

The lyres, too, or possibly harps. Revelation 15:2ff: "And I saw ... those who had conquered the beast and its image ... standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands". Again, not obviously everyone, but harps none the less.

No walking on clouds there, though. And in any case it's not clear that taking Revelation as a straightforward account of what to expect in some future existence really matches much with its actual intention. Those white robes and "harps of God" and all the rest are all there as symbols of purity and worship and the like, and arguably the author of Revelation was much more interested in commenting on contemporary persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire than in actually predicting the future.

(Note: I'm not a Christian, though I was one for many years. Feel free to discount any of the above as a result, if that seems appropriate to you.)

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#43

Post by motohagiography »

javajosh wrote: post #20
motohagiography wrote: post #3

> 15. Trying to compete on a single flat playing field with six billion other humans also creates problems. Our ancestors lived in bands of around 50 people. Today the media is constantly bombarding us with news of exceptionally rich and pretty people as if they lived next door to us; and very few people get a chance to be the best at any specialty. This is why I say social media isn't fun, and it has always been a c…

>a cruel spectacle of what happens when you throw average people into the ring of elite competiton [sic] Good comment. I'm curious what your take on the use of social media as a means to share outrageous lies and engage in trolling behavior. Is this also an expression of a kind of status? Genuinely asking. I never thought of it that way.

While I haven't given trolls much thought because people who were on early IRC or Usenet, or predecessors in the BBS/fidonet scene (which pre-dates me) have a natural immunity to trolls. However, perhaps it's because we still think the internet isn't real life, where for an entire young middle class, it in fact is. Nobody expected to live in a future where the bourgoisie and their aspirants live in a zoo of their own making, and that geeks would become their zookeepers.

The trolling today looks like a revolt against this game that isn't a game by people who sense there is something wrong but act out within it instead of stepping back. Flinging poop instead of orchestrating an escape, or less dramatically, just putting down the zoo and going for a walk. As long as people can be shocked, there will be people to shock them. In this sense, trolls aren't a problem for social media at all because it needs them to help keep people engaged and disatracted to preserve the illusion that it's meaningful and real.

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#44

Post by chris_st »

gjm11 wrote: post #42
chris_st wrote: post #23

> 2. [...] Again, consider Christian Heaven: singing hymns doesn't sound like loads of endless fun, but you're supposed to enjoy praying, so no one can point this out. Clearly written by someone who's either never been to church, or goes to a boring one :-) If you've ever been to a fantastic (rock, jazz, whatever) concert, you know the amazing feeling of being caught up with others in the excitement of a shared music…

The author of the OP is a Jewish atheist, so indeed probably hasn't attended a lot of Christian church services. I think "you may need to shop around" is too strong. A churchgoer may care about other things besides whether the music at their church is exciting to them, and it's not obvious that they should prioritize excitement over (say) theological agreement, or strength of community, or what if anything the church…

Well, you don't have to be Jewish or an atheist to think that standing around for eternity singing hymns sounds boring!

And I didn't mean to be pushy about shopping around, but just to slightly counter the idea that church is, by definition, boring.

Thanks for the updates from Revelation... I'll correct my misconceptions :-)

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#45

Post by dave333 »

To be achievable, utopia should be an attitude, not a place. The best attitude I ever came across is "Everything in moderation, including moderation itself."

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#46

Post by ekam »

javajosh wrote: post #13

These discussions are useful in a concrete way because it helps us to identify and prioritize our values with our imagination! Lesswrong is, in this case, cataloging my teenage thoughts on the matter, which is very cool. Buddhist cosmology has an interesting take on heaven. They believe only humans can become enlightened and achieve nirvana. Angels, demons and animals can't do it. Even heaven ends, in that system, an…

Very fascinating - there’s strong parallels here with the Sikh system and the stages reached in meditation

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#47

Post by coldtea »

motohagiography wrote: post #3

> 15. Trying to compete on a single flat playing field with six billion other humans also creates problems. Our ancestors lived in bands of around 50 people. Today the media is constantly bombarding us with news of exceptionally rich and pretty people as if they lived next door to us; and very few people get a chance to be the best at any specialty. This is why I say social media isn't fun, and it has always been a c…

>I don't think most people can actually afford to lose.

I think how you describe the problem is solid, but the situation is the opposite:

Most people can totally afford to lose -- because they wont be losing anything that they have anyway. Not winning at being a famous and rich YouTube influencer still leaves you with what you had before (and the same need to hold a job, etc).

What they can't really afford is to participate, because competition with all the elite people for things most have 1 in a million chances of ever achieving would just drive them mad.

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#48

Post by coldtea »

tucosan wrote: post #33
elliekelly wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? I’m really not convinced it’s fun even for wealthy and beautiful people.

Imagine you're wealthy and beautiful, and the first thing that comes to your mind, is that you need to share it with the world. I think it's quite telling. I suspect l, that many interesting people are not on social media. They simply have better things to do, than waste their time on Instagram and tiktok.

>Imagine you're wealthy and beautiful, and the first thing that comes to your mind, is that you need to share it with the world. I think it's quite telling.

Not as telling as it seems. We are social animals. It's only natural to want to share it with the world.

It would be more shallow to revel in having wealth and/or beauty alone.

What people want instead is deeper, is love and recognition from others. That's where hapiness comes from (not some "peace with oneself" etc, that's just a prerequisite), and that's what those people try to get by sharing their wealth and beauty.

Many of cause do it crudely, and will be unhappy nonetheless.

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#49

Post by coldtea »

chris_st wrote: post #23

> 2. [...] Again, consider Christian Heaven: singing hymns doesn't sound like loads of endless fun, but you're supposed to enjoy praying, so no one can point this out. Clearly written by someone who's either never been to church, or goes to a boring one :-) If you've ever been to a fantastic (rock, jazz, whatever) concert, you know the amazing feeling of being caught up with others in the excitement of a shared music…

>Clearly written by someone who's either never been to church, or goes to a boring one :-) If you've ever been to a fantastic (rock, jazz, whatever) concert, you know the amazing feeling of being caught up with others in the excitement of a shared musical experience. It's fantastic!

Yep, and besides that church hymns/music can be great fun, the part is written by someone with little knowledge of actual christian doctrine beyond cheap lore (and perhaps evangelical neo-christian imagery), because paradise is not about signing hymns and such (the same way hell is not some torture camp with tar pits and fires)...

Re: Laws of Fun (2009)

#50

Post by javajosh »

ekam wrote: post #46
javajosh wrote: post #13

These discussions are useful in a concrete way because it helps us to identify and prioritize our values with our imagination! Lesswrong is, in this case, cataloging my teenage thoughts on the matter, which is very cool. Buddhist cosmology has an interesting take on heaven. They believe only humans can become enlightened and achieve nirvana. Angels, demons and animals can't do it. Even heaven ends, in that system, an…

Very fascinating - there’s strong parallels here with the Sikh system and the stages reached in meditation

Yes, all the vedic religions share the same overarching ideas - karma, rebirth, escaping the wheel of samsara, and so on. I'm not a religious scholar but it's fascinating history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vedic_religion
Post reply on HN