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

131–140 of 148 posts

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

#131

Post by jacquesm »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #129
jacquesm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, by giving that example you show that you have not understood anything of the discussion so far. Let me spell it out: that's the defining moment of Tank Man's life, you have zero clue about what happened prior to that moment. And that's because really nobody seems to have a clue about who he really was, what his life was like up to that moment and so on. It's a singular act of bravery and one that I very much feel…

Let's be charitable and steelman your parent comment, and Tank Man too (quite literally). Character is important. As you say we don't know much about Tank Man. It was probably more than the defining moment of his life, it was the last day of it. Isn't it fair to assume that whatever led up to that moment was a life lived in good character? He may not have lived as an exemplar of "authenticity", and if it was only a m…

Yes, which is more or less the whole point of this argument: nobody's perfect, but people can be 'on average' good; but that's not the same as equating them with saints, it just isn't realistic (and even the saints aren't saints in terms of absolute, they are just declared to be so, by people who themselves too are very much flawed).

So let's not resort to theoretical absolutes. I don't know where 'here' is but every culture has similar idioms but at the same time every culture has something about being careful about meeting your heroes.

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

#132

Post by jacquesm »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #127
jacquesm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, by giving that example you show that you have not understood anything of the discussion so far. Let me spell it out: that's the defining moment of Tank Man's life, you have zero clue about what happened prior to that moment. And that's because really nobody seems to have a clue about who he really was, what his life was like up to that moment and so on. It's a singular act of bravery and one that I very much feel…

How exactly are you defining "authentic human"? It sounds like you're defining it as someone who always does the right thing without exception, who of course doesn't exist, QED. What point are you trying to make, actually? Your argument seems to be that "authentic humans," however that's defined, are not just rare but nonexistent, even if other quietly heroic people who fill the same role do exist. I'm not sure what…

The key sentence in TFA is "In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not.". That's a highly theoretical argument and I simply differ of opinion. In essence everybody can be compelled to be what they are not, all it takes is the right circumstances and your Saint will be a sinner and the other way around.

I'm far more interested in the interplay between people and their circumstances than I am in labeling a particular human as authentic or not, it smacks of a value judgment in a vacuum, whereas IRL there is no such thing.

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

#133

Post by olddustytrail »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #69
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…

> instinctively Humans don't have instincts. That's what separates us from the other, lower animals. P.S. Urges, drives and desires aren't instincts. P.P.S. Technically not true, the human being has a couple instincts related to breastfeeding, but they are supposed to disappear after a couple months in a healthy human baby.

Humans very obviously have instincts, not least because it's humans who invented the concept. You might better argue that it's only humans who differentiate their behaviours so they consider some that are not instinctual.

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

#134

Post by dragonwriter »

olddustytrail wrote: post #133
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instinctively Humans don't have instincts. That's what separates us from the other, lower animals. P.S. Urges, drives and desires aren't instincts. P.P.S. Technically not true, the human being has a couple instincts related to breastfeeding, but they are supposed to disappear after a couple months in a healthy human baby.

Humans very obviously have instincts, not least because it's humans who invented the concept. You might better argue that it's only humans who differentiate their behaviours so they consider some that are not instinctual.

> Humans very obviously have instincts, not least because it's humans who invented the concept.

Humans invented the concept of exoskeletons, too; inventing a concept does not imply having the concrete feature referred to by the concept.

Yes, humans have instincts, but inventing the concept of “instinct” is unrelated to that.

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

#135

Post by prometheus76 »

glitchc wrote: post #93
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…

The "authentic human" sounds like the No True Scotman's Fallacy. One person's authentic may not match another's, yet both are equally authentic. As a case in point, consider vegetarians. Are those who eat animals somehow "inauthentic", even if they agree on every other aspect with other authentic individuals?

Is authenticity externally determined, or internally determined? Is there an external objective or universal standard of authenticity, or is it more of an internal integrity or trueness to one's self-determined values? Or a blend of both?

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

#136

Post by [deleted] »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #125
LastTrain wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the worst actors to be the ones that try and fill with you with so much cynicism and mistrust that the "authentic humans" feel debased and consequently second-guess themselves.

Absolutely this! It's a fascinating and disturbing phenomenon. FWIW, here's a discussion/interview I had with a psychologist [0] about why, for exmaple, some people will say "Privacy is dead. Give up hope. There's nothing you can do..." yada yada... And the less they know about the subject technically, the more insistent and outspoken they are on the matter. It's bugged me for ages what's behind this, because there's…

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by philsnow »

moomoo11 wrote: post #114
NickM wrote: post #84

I wonder how many of the people commenting on this essay read all the way through. It starts out quite lucid and makes some seemingly insightful points, but as the essay goes on he starts to descend into some strange metaphysical ideas about time not being real and reality being a retelling of parts of the Bible. I’m not familiar with much of PKD’s works or his life story, but I honestly can’t tell if he had mental h…

Seems like a typical story after taking some heroic shrooms dose or LSD. I mean, end of the day, who the heck knows what is even real. We're here now, whatever this is. YOLO.

> who the heck knows what is even real. We're here now, whatever this is. YOLO.

I don't disagree, but in this essay PKD seems to say that there is no objective reality, rather everybody has their own experiential reality that is at most somewhat connected to others' experiential realities.

This is a far cry from saying, as I believe, that there is an objective reality and we each experience it subjectively and with whatever fidelity to the underlying reality we're capable of.

The former view seems a lot more hopeless / nihilistic -- what's the point of striving for anything if it mostly only affects our own reality?

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

#139

Post by moomoo11 »

philsnow wrote: post #138
moomoo11 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a typical story after taking some heroic shrooms dose or LSD. I mean, end of the day, who the heck knows what is even real. We're here now, whatever this is. YOLO.

> who the heck knows what is even real. We're here now, whatever this is. YOLO. I don't disagree, but in this essay PKD seems to say that there is no objective reality, rather everybody has their own experiential reality that is at most somewhat connected to others' experiential realities. This is a far cry from saying, as I believe, that there is an objective reality and we each experience it subjectively and with w…

For me it’s selfish reasons I guess and I think it’s like that for all life. If it is indeed my reality then I’m gonna do everything and anything to make that reality work for me. But I’m a good person (definition mine) so I operate in a way that is synergy with others.

Why sit on the sidelines when I’m the main subject of the movie or book or whatever this thing my brain is rendering for me

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

#140

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

mhaberl wrote: post #112
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.)

Encyclopedia Britannica [1] also doesn't agree with you. > ...it is taken to include the possibility that humans too can be governed by instinct But that's far from being the only source that defines 'instinct' in a way that doesn't align with what you're proposing. Humans do have instincts. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/instinct/Instinct-as-behavi...

Yes, many things can be "taken to include the possibility".

Including the possibility that Gandalf and Harry Potter fly in on a Raelian flying saucer and solve climate change for us.

In reality, however, no instinctual behavior has yet been found in humans.

Post reply on HN