Wireheading (my rough definition for this post:) is when we make
ourselves feel rewarded, apart from some kind of reality. The default
means is through some kind of pleasure or sense of well-being.
In Wirehead Gods On Lotus Thrones,
Scott Alexander points out that wireheading sounds repugnant:
Wireheading is commonly considered an ignoble end for the human race --
our posthuman descendants reduced to sitting in dingy rooms, taking
never-ending hits of some ultra-super-drug, all their knowledge and
power lying fallow except the tiny fraction necessary to retain
delivery of the ultra-drug and pump nutrients into their veins.
but that something similar does not for him:
Imagine instead our posthuman descendants taking the form of Buddhas
sitting on vast lotus thrones in a state of blissful tranquility.
Their minds contain perfect awareness of everything that goes on
in the Universe and the reasons why it happens, yet to each happening,
from the fall of a sparrow to the self-immolation of a galaxy, they
react only with acceptance and equanimity. Suffering and death long
since having been optimized away, they have no moral obligation
beyond sitting and reflecting on their own perfection, omnipotence,
and omniscience -- at which they feel boundless joy.
I am pretty okay with this future. This okayness surprises me,
because the lotus-god future seems a lot like the wirehead future. All
you do is replace the dingy room with a lotus throne, and change your
metaphor for their no-doubt indescribably intense feelings from "drug-addled
pleasure" to "cosmic bliss". It seems more like a change in decoration
than a change in substance. Should I worry that the valence of a future
shifts from "heavily dystopian" to "heavily utopian" with a simple change
in decoration?
I generally consider wireheading to be undesirable, but also I found a
similar thing happening as Alexander did, when considering the two images
of it. I found the lotus-god scenario basically acceptable, despite finding
the dingy room scenario basically unacceptable. So I want to try to
understand what is going on.
Maybe it's the imagery of the setting?
The future wireheading I imagine is clinical and efficient, each human
(or post-human) slimmed down to the minimal size and complexity needed
to experience maximal bliss, all lined up in a quiet hospital/factory/clean
room, with robots maintaining them as necessary. Each (post-)human might
be identical (because it turns out there's only one optimal way to solve
for maximum bliss per resource expended). (In this scenario, we
have no rational concept of what value ought to be anchoring us to a given
axiology. So the concept drifts down economic gradients toward
something that enables value to be mass-produced for as cheaply as
possible. [Actually, maybe the cheapest value function to maximize is to
say all matter/energy is of inestimable value and that nothing is needed
to be done -- it's all conserved. Then, whatever was driven by value
functions would cease. But maybe that idea should go in a different post.])
I think this (mass-production mini-hedonist factory) is more
realistic than the dingy room idea. Aesthetically, I find this (the
kind of hospital/factory/clean room setting) neutral compared to a dingy
room (negative) or the more spiritual framing of Alexander's Buddhas
(positive).
Having (from my perspective) neutralized the effect of the
negative physical setting, do I still feel wireheading is repugnant?
Not as much. To be true to my thought as to what may actually
happen in the future, I had to add the part about people being simplified
and maybe made identical. That erases human individuality, and it
may be the case that this turns full-fledged personal beings into mere blobs
of conscious experience. That sounds objectionable. But what if I
adjust for that as well? If I imagine that somehow they are persons,
who have histories and whose proper names each have a unique denotation
and set of connotations? (I'm not sure how they would acquire histories
in the perfected future, but I can set that aside for the sake
of a thought experiment.)
I still find wireheading to be undesirable in this version of the
thought experiment, but I find that when I imagine wireheading to
be just "real personal beings being in a state of blissful tranquility",
as opposed to simply "bliss", it seems fine to me in the moment. I
think the thing that makes a difference is that normally I think of
pleasure in terms of "euphoria" or "being high". But "tranquility"
gives it a different spin. I've experienced both intense euphoria
and tranquility, and it's the tranquility that I find more trustworthy.
As one might expect, the Buddha situation also seems fine when I
imagine it.
I even feel like my MSLN-related
arguments against things like wireheading and
hedonism can't be worth worrying about. I intuitively know that they
aren't true, just by imagining being in a state of blissful tranquility.
I am (like plenty of people, I guess) susceptible to imagining things.
When I imagine blissful tranquility, I enter into that psychological state
(enough to have an effect, although not fully) and find myself
accepting things in general, including tranquility itself. This hedonic state
is a feeling of ought-to-be-ness,
and it persuasively validates itself -- or, has the psychological effect
of validating itself in my experience -- exactly what you would expect
from the feeling of ought-to-be-ness.
But rationally, should I ignore the possibility that when I'm
blissed out, I may be preparing to
harden myself against feeling real love, and against truly becoming kin to
God? This would break God's heart -- can I comprehend his valuing of me and
the pain I cause him when I'm on the drugs of imagining blissful
tranquility? (And it threatens my destruction.)
When we perceive something that should be, it makes sense to feel the
feeling of ought-to-be-ness. This is the natural function of the feeling.
But if we are feeling the feeling all the time, it washes out our
normative perception, our ability to sense what is acceptable through
our direct perceptions of acceptability.
So perhaps the right way to think about the Buddha future is not
to really understand what it would be like to experience, what the experience
would be in itself. Or at least, not to let that be the definitive truth
of it. There is reality outside the experience itself, and
I want to know something about it, so I have to look at the Buddha future
two ways: in itself (which says that on the hedonic levels of the
hierarchy of betrayal it's 100% valid
by definition), and abstractly, in its relationship with other truths
(which says that it crowds out love / real valuing, a relationship with
God and the truth, a kinship with the God who loved the world through
its whole history, and a chance to live with God and the truth forever).
Beauty works very much the same way as tranquility. (Maybe beauty
always brings tranquility, or they both always bring feelings of
ought-to-be-ness.) The psychological state is nice, but can be a
way we sell ourselves evil.
From an outsider's perspective, the overall appeal of Buddhism could
often seem to be "feel tranquility no matter what reality is". But, to
be accurate, I should note that the emphasis on psychological peace and
beauty can be found in the Christian scriptures as well. Jesus is a
beautiful person who says "My peace I give to you." But he also warns
of hell and denounces evil. (Speaking from memory and not from having
studied to address this topic,) Jesus is balanced somewhere between
Buddhism (or hedonism) on one hand and something like perhaps the worst
of anxious Christianity or materialism on the other. There is both
"spirit" (experiential/hedonic ought-to-be-ness?) and "truth" (rational
relations; matters of fact?) in God.
