Live data from Hacker News

Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

gwern.net

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually contentment or are you fading away so much you cease to exist? The story is not about physical brain changes, no. It's about losing yourself. It's arguing that to exist is to make decisions. Following the device too much leads to a life that looks successful from the outside but inside no longer has a person enjoying the success, just a puppet.

But it explicitly says it provides the wearer with happiness, it is "supernaturally effective" at it. Where as a reader are we supposed to gather this is not an internal happiness? Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like some inverted solipsism as you suggest. Wouldn't the wearer need to be compelled for that to be at stake? Kadmi-nomai can wear it and take it off, right? Aren't…

> But it explicitly says it provides the wearer with happiness

It gives you one of the best options for happiness for any decision you face, which is not quite the same. And don't forget it tells you to take it off very first thing.

> Where as a reader are we supposed to gather this is not an internal happiness?

The rest of the story.

> Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like some inverted solipsism as you suggest. Wouldn't the wearer need to be compelled for that to be at stake? Kadmi-nomai can wear it and take it off, right?

It's a problem if you wear and follow it for a very long time. He talked to it for a couple hours.

> Aren't they, from the inside and outside, just listening to magically good advice and getting along great because of it?

Your neocortex is pretty important. You can argue that you think loss of self is unrealistic, but the story is very clear in its judgement. Don't turn a disagreement with the story into "not understanding" the story.

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#53

> The wearer lives an abnormally successful life as soon as most people wear it "abnormally" becomes "normally". logically the rare enlightened who refuse to wear it and instead keep their own [spoiler] become abnormal unsuccessful failures, not the other way around.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it explicitly says it provides the wearer with happiness, it is "supernaturally effective" at it. Where as a reader are we supposed to gather this is not an internal happiness? Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like some inverted solipsism as you suggest. Wouldn't the wearer need to be compelled for that to be at stake? Kadmi-nomai can wear it and take it off, right? Aren't…

> But it explicitly says it provides the wearer with happiness It gives you one of the best options for happiness for any decision you face, which is not quite the same. And don't forget it tells you to take it off very first thing. > Where as a reader are we supposed to gather this is not an internal happiness? The rest of the story. > Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like som…

Well my reply elsewhere in this vein seems to have been flagged to death or something, but.. OK. If its really just that, then yeah I am guilty of expecting maybe a little more intellectually here then is apparently warranted. Thanks for the help there.

Very modest opinion from a, as you can see, pretty dumb guy: the reason the Ring of Gyges is a "good" parable (or insert similar here) isn't because it somehow contains everything we want to be "argued" against, e.g., Thrasymachus. Rather, it's because it creates a unique ethical dimension to be interrogated and possibly overcome. It creates a true dilemma and a kind of need for ethics. OP's little story here just feels like Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius dressing on top of some commitments we are already supposed to be in on. It does not really inspire one to dig deeper, or to even really think (which kinda has a fun irony to it relative to the story).

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#55

I don't get it. First, how is it "better for you" to take the earring off, if "the wearer lives an abnormally successful life, usually ending out as a rich and much-beloved pillar of the community with a large and happy family?" Second, apparently some people do choose to take the earring off at some point, because the story refers to "the testimony of all living wearers." So it does not, in fact, appear to usurp, su…

> how is it "better for you" to take the earring off, if "the wearer lives an abnormally successful life, usually ending out as a rich and much-beloved pillar of the community with a large and happy family?" I think it's pretty obvious since you read until the end you know in the second one there's quickly no "you" remaining ;) It's like the terrifying answer to Star Trek teleporter paradox. On the surface it's the s…

Well in the teleporter example you still have a Bob. With the earring it's probably not processing Bob's mind in there at all, which makes it way worse.

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how is it "better for you" to take the earring off, if "the wearer lives an abnormally successful life, usually ending out as a rich and much-beloved pillar of the community with a large and happy family?" I think it's pretty obvious since you read until the end you know in the second one there's quickly no "you" remaining ;) It's like the terrifying answer to Star Trek teleporter paradox. On the surface it's the s…

Well in the teleporter example you still have a Bob. With the earring it's probably not processing Bob's mind in there at all, which makes it way worse.

Earring supposedly directs wearer to what's good for them so supposedly it did processing at first...

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in the teleporter example you still have a Bob. With the earring it's probably not processing Bob's mind in there at all, which makes it way worse.

Earring supposedly directs wearer to what's good for them so supposedly it did processing at first...

It's processing something, but probably not running a whole Bob in there.

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earring supposedly directs wearer to what's good for them so supposedly it did processing at first...

It's processing something , but probably not running a whole Bob in there.

Sure. But the key part is the same, you die and something else walks instead...

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's processing something , but probably not running a whole Bob in there.

Sure. But the key part is the same, you die and something else walks instead...

Eh. Like arguably you die when you sleep. It's way better to have an ultra accurate copy than to have a totally different thing half-pretend to be Bob/you.

Re: Clarity didn't work, trying mysterianism (2012)

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But the key part is the same, you die and something else walks instead...

Eh. Like arguably you die when you sleep. It's way better to have an ultra accurate copy than to have a totally different thing half-pretend to be Bob/you.

> you die when you sleep

Eh. The teleporter thing is not about that kind of dying... and the earring one also!

Post reply on HN