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

How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

urbigenous.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#101

Post by jacobr1 »

coldtea wrote: post #89
TeMPOraL wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, Moloch loves the "authentic" humans, because they can be bullshitted into doing anything. Yes, they'll resist any direct attempts at telling them how to live their lives - but they'll do that as much to a tyrant, as to their democratic representatives, or their own community. Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Mo…

> Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. What Dick describes is the opposite of inertia. It takes internal resolve (and force) to stand against all the forces pressuring them to do the wrong thing. Inertia would instead just go with the flow of power -- the path of least resistance that's more comfortamble. > The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Moloch figur…

The "self-assured smart-asses" are often those loudly proclaiming their authenticity. That doesn't make it so, but it can blur the lines.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#102

Post by garba_dlm »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #58
nonrandomstring wrote: post #43

For me, the most powerful passage in this one is; """ The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of t…

Nah, Moloch loves the "authentic" humans, because they can be bullshitted into doing anything. Yes, they'll resist any direct attempts at telling them how to live their lives - but they'll do that as much to a tyrant, as to their democratic representatives, or their own community. Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Mo…

> Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human

because inertia is unavoidable. a fact of nature, it's useless to try to judge it as good or bad; however we all do this. and after trying to do this, we all eventually learn that inertia is unrelated to virtue and that everything will be affected by inertia

is this good? or bad? is this a virtue? or a vice? good for subjects? bad for objects?

the answer is no all the way until one realizes that it doesn't matter. it'll still be inertia

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#103

Post by jacquesm »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #99
jacquesm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is: 'authentic humans' are in short supply, we have the real ones instead and that's what we should deal with. How theoretically authentic humans behave in books of SF authors isn't going to make a huge difference if in the real world such role models are few and far between especially if we count on their numbers to make up the difference between their individual powers and those wielded by your average rul…

authentic humans, as defined here, are real, they're just few and far between.

Show me a single one then.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#104

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

moffkalast wrote: post #96
robertlagrant wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're including neurochemistry, then doesn't that mean everything is reality according to the OP'd definition?

Well uh.. yeah that's an excellent point. I suppose it would make everything real since otherwise it wouldn't exist at all. If we make the hard distinction with subjective experiences vs. objective observations, then I suppose love isn't real. But there are still people and animals doing actions that objectively count as love regardless of their subjective experience of it. I suppose it again depends on the definitio…

In the given example you may choose to believe that slapping others' children is acceptable but when you do so you're going to experience physical violence and no amount of belief is going to change that.

In this manner, love is real because the consequences are real.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#105

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

jacquesm wrote: post #103
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

authentic humans, as defined here, are real, they're just few and far between.

Show me a single one then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#106

Post by KingFelix »

defrost wrote: post #21
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #7

Ironic, given that a hallmark of a "Phildickian" work is that the protagonist's reality can fall apart before the end of the work. https://philipdick.com/literary-criticism/essays/phildickian...

In PKD's own words, in the linked article: However, I will reveal a secret to you: I like to build universes which do fall apart. I like to see them come unglued, and I like to see how the characters in the novels cope with this problem. I have a secret love of chaos. There should be more of it. Do not believe — and I am dead serious when I say this — do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a socie…

If you like Pkd you should for sure read Borges work. He wrote a lot about this. Labyrinths is a great collection of his work lots of world building that falls apart.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#107

Post by cortesoft »

coldtea wrote: post #89
TeMPOraL wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, Moloch loves the "authentic" humans, because they can be bullshitted into doing anything. Yes, they'll resist any direct attempts at telling them how to live their lives - but they'll do that as much to a tyrant, as to their democratic representatives, or their own community. Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Mo…

> Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. What Dick describes is the opposite of inertia. It takes internal resolve (and force) to stand against all the forces pressuring them to do the wrong thing. Inertia would instead just go with the flow of power -- the path of least resistance that's more comfortamble. > The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Moloch figur…

> Inertia would instead just go with the flow of power

No, inertia is specifically the characteristic of matter to continue in its current state, not the characteristic of not pushing back against another force.

If a stationary object is suddenly pushed by a force, inertia is the property that resists moving.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#108

Post by polishdude20 »

jacobr1 wrote: post #101
coldtea wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. What Dick describes is the opposite of inertia. It takes internal resolve (and force) to stand against all the forces pressuring them to do the wrong thing. Inertia would instead just go with the flow of power -- the path of least resistance that's more comfortamble. > The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Moloch figur…

The "self-assured smart-asses" are often those loudly proclaiming their authenticity. That doesn't make it so, but it can blur the lines.

Then again what IS "authenticity"? It depends on your values. It really teeters on the fact that we all deep down share some common goal. Extend all human life? Increase all human happiness? Or maybe just increase my groups happiness? Or just increase my own? "Authenticity" is a buzzword that is more akin to "consistency". You don't flip flop between various values. But then there's the meta-flip flopping of values. Is your MAIN value the ability to BE flexible? That's you're main value and in pursuit of that, you flip flop between many different values as time goes on. To most, you'd appear as in-authentic. To yourself, you'd appear like you're following the same straight and narrow path you always have because you're considering the higher level value you're pursuing.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#109

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

HenryBemis wrote: post #91
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is wrong. Feelings aren't instinct. (Feeling disgusted or sexually aroused or aggressive isn't an instinct.) Instincts, by definition, are complex behavior. (Think birds building nests; nobody teaches them to do that, they are born with that knowledge.)

Sexual arousal is part of the procreation mechanism, and thus I (not a psychologist) will classify it as instinct. I can think of many different feelings as instinct. When I see my gf crying, I don't 'think' to hug her, I instinctively hug her. When your friend walks two steps ahead of you and falls down, you don't stop to think and feel, you instinctively grab them.

An instinct is complex, unlearned behavior.

Sexual arousal is neither complex nor behavior. It is a simple hormonal state.

You're using a colloqual meaning of "instinctive" that is unscientific and wrong.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#110

Post by polishdude20 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #8
Physkal wrote: post #4

This might be my first request for a chatgpt summary.

Not to get too confrontational but why? The point of reading text by a talented author is to read his/her words in the way they wrote it. Otherwise it's all "14 year old girl wanted to test if her boyfriend would really get upset if she died, faked her death, it goes horribly wrong"

I thought about why I'd want an AI summary or even a human-made summary of a long text and realized there's a deep wrongness this need stems from.. I like a summary so I can know if I like the article and agree with it. If I would like and agree with the summary (thus reinforcing my worldview) I'll most likely read the whole article. If the summary is uninteresting or does not support my worldview, I'm more likely to skip the article.

And this is the grave problem of the matter. I'm selecting things to read and learn about that I am already familiar with and agree to. That's no way to learn new things and new perspectives. This action repeated over many times over many days and years leads to a person who's very closed minded and starts to think of themselves as the main character of their reality. I'm noticing that in myself and it's really hard not to do.

Post reply on HN