Man marries video game character [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

27th November 2009, 00:47

as they don't really has the cultural residue of the belief in a soul.I know this is something you've studied, so I'm willing to accept that you have a better understanding of the history of Japanese culture than me, but I'm hesitant to accept any explanation of contemporary social phenomena that relies on appeals to traditional cultural beliefs and practices, if only because those explanations have so often been misused to ignore the impact of colonialism and similar processes (in studies of partition in India, for example, orientalist historians have frequently failed to acknowledge the conscious attempts on the part of the British to introduce religious divisions into politics, which arguably made the violence of partition possible, and, whilst India was under colonial rule, allowed the authorities to turn different sections of the population against each other - instead they claim that those divisions were eternal) or to create a false division between enlightened and backwards cultural perspectives. I can think of plenty of reasons as to why things like this might happen in Japan, if they're even limited to Japan, that don't have anything to do with Japanese culture (which is in any case hardly homogeneous, or something that's developed in isolation from the rest of the world, or something that's remained constant throughout Japanese history, as I'm sure you're aware - you only need to look at the numbers of Christians in Japan and South Korea to see how much these societies have been influenced from the outside, and how varied they are) such as the fact that significant numbers of young Japanese men are becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of society, often being unemployed or otherwise excluded from the small group of permanent workers who are relatively privileged in comparison to the rest of the Japanese labour market and who are increasingly surrounded by a much larger pool of temporary workers who lack the same rights, and who, unlike permanent workers, cannot expect to be employed by the same firm for the whole of their lives.

Users might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori

No offense HC, but what you posted kind of reminded me of something that came up in one of my lectures the other day - it was a lecture on Chinese history and the tutor was intensely criticizing pseudo-historians who explain China only having a small amount of railroads at the end of the 19th century as being due to an innate commitment to feng shui, and a belief that railroads and other aspects of industrialization conflicted with feng shui. He quite rightly argued that these kinds of explanations are not only factually inaccurate, they also suggest a very patronizing view of non-European societies, and are motivated by ideological interests, such as a desire to avoid having to recognize the effects of imperialism, and to hold China solely responsible for its predicament.

Holden Caulfield

27th November 2009, 01:03

Japanese culture (which is in any case hardly homogeneous, or something that's developed in isolation from the rest of the world, or something that's remained constant throughout Japanese history, as I'm sure you're aware - you only need to look at the numbers of Christians in Japan and South Korea to see how much these societies have been influenced from the outside, and how varied they are)

It isn't chauvenist to point out cultural referances in pop culture. The whole blasts from the hands dragon ball -Z kinda thing is the same kinda thing.

daoism, confucianism and the various buddist sects to not have a concept of a soul as such. Therefore if a robot was made that could do everything humans could do why would it not be human? It couldn't not be, especially in buddism with their concepts of recycling of atoms or whatever the rebirth thing is really about (who knows).

In western tradition a robot that is like a human would not be a human because it lacks a soul, or that special something that makes it human (see the Tin man in Wizard of Oz for an example of that one).

What ya think now bobby?

Holden Caulfield

27th November 2009, 01:05

my argument is hardly patronising or chauvenist, perhaps im wrong but it is not what you imply my thought to stem from

Dr Mindbender

27th November 2009, 01:05

The thing is, when you reach the point where you know you aren't talking to someone with emotions, etc, someone who isn't human, and isn't living, you get turned off about doing something ''human'' with it.

Atleast I think I would.

I'm not so convinced. It would be interesting to see once robotics acheives the technological level of 'commander data' in star trek who is treated with the same status as his human peers.

I think man as a species still has an anti-materialist affinity with the flesh body and 'soul'. One day, our culture in how we percieve emotion may be based around other factors, such as the sentience of the being we are talking to, wether it be biological or artificial.

mel

27th November 2009, 01:19

The idea that AI will reach this point is sketchy, and the value of such humanoid machines is uncertain at best. There are a great many hurdles to be overcome before AI could even potentially act in such a way, and programming such a machine with traditional methods would be impossible. Ultimately, any answers to the original question are extremely speculative at best, the sort of thing that would be interesting to explore the ideas and consequences of in Science Fiction, but that it's ultimately impossible to give any satisfactory answers for given today's knowledge.

RedStarOverChina

27th November 2009, 01:32

Talk about alienation...

RedStarOverChina

27th November 2009, 01:38

He quite rightly argued that these kinds of explanations are not only factually inaccurate, they also suggest a very patronizing view of non-European societies, and are motivated by ideological interests, such as a desire to avoid having to recognize the effects of imperialism, and to hold China solely responsible for its predicament.
Not wishing to ruining the "feng shui" was definitely part of the concern---especially among the uneducated public. Peasants organized mass riots to prevent the Westerners from building railroads.

But more important was the real threat from having foreigners control transportation in China which could allow their influence to reach inland China.

RedStarOverChina

27th November 2009, 02:00

Getting back to the topic, the alienating effects on human relations Capitalism has is known to all---At least the more discerning folks here at Revleft.

In fact, some political scientists would argue that the very notion of "modernization" consist of turning people with intimate contact with fellow villagers/neighbors into anonymous strangers. They certainly have a point. The need for friendship and neighborly love----or even human contact at all diminishes as our most important human relation becomes that of exploitation.

Nowhere is that effect more apparent than in Japan.

BobKKKindle$

27th November 2009, 02:08

Not wishing to ruining the "feng shui" was definitely part of the concern---especially among the uneducated public. Peasants organized mass riots to prevent the Westerners from building railroads.

But more important was the real threat from having foreigners control transportation in China which could allow their influence to reach inland China.

I don't think that's the case at all, I think that opposition to industrialization by peasants and other segments of the working population was motivated fundamentally by the impact that industrialization was likely to have on their livelihoods - for example, opposition to the introduction of steam boats on China's major rivers was centered around individuals who derived their income from traditional modes of transport, such as rafts, and would have been deprived of their role if steam boats became prevalent. Now, opposition to industrialization may have been expressed in terms of feng shui, but as Marxists we should recognize that ideas do not exist in a vacuum and that oppressed populations often express their grievances, either consciously or unconsciously, in the language of whatever ideas are most immediate and open to manipulation - in that sense a parallel can be drawn between events in China in the 19th century and the peasant rebellions of medieval Europe, as the latter were articulated in religious terms, even though they were rooted in fundamentally material concerns. We can also draw a parallel within China between opposition to industrialization in the late 19th century and opposition to collectivization in the 1950s, as during the latter period there were frequent cases of individual peasants from a range of social backgrounds declaring themselves the descendants of the Ming dynasty and assuring potential followers that they had magic powers that would protect them from harm and enable them to restore dynastic rule, against the might of the PLA - for example, in a particular case there was a rebel leader who claimed that as soon as they entered battle a supernatural army would rise up from the ground and defeat all of the government soldiers by killing them or making them surrender. From a superficial perspective, these individuals might appear insane and/or constrained by traditional beliefs that had nothing to do with concrete social divisions or contemporary concerns, but the reality was that traditional ideas were being used to articulate grievances that were very real for much of China's rural population.

This is an interesting issue though. Perry has written a great article on rural violence in China in the 1950s, at Elizabeth Perry, “Rural Violence in Socialist China”, The China Quarterly, no. 103, September 1985

mel

27th November 2009, 02:24

This is interesting, but off-topic, can you possibly split the discussion about this into its own thread?

BobKKKindle$

27th November 2009, 02:26

If the discussion progresses, yes, but the thing that RSOC referred to was in a post from me responding to HC, so for now I'll leave it here.

Tatarin

27th November 2009, 04:38

Nah, I'll wait for the more advanced T-1000 model. I like variation.

RedStarOverChina

27th November 2009, 06:11

First, I did acknowledge that belief in "feng shui" among the peasantry wasn't the primary factor halting industrialization in China. Official resistance was, according to what I've read. The Qing court furiously debated about it. When the more modern minded officially finally won and decided to build the railroad, they were told by Imperialist powers that if they were to receive help from Western engineers they must give the Imperialist power of their preference the right to operate the railroad. That didn't sit well with the Qing government for obvious reasons. But being a defeated power, the Qing court had no choice but to allow them to built and operate all of the railroad in China. The Qing court had to wait until 1905 before they could finally build a railroad by themselves(with the help of a returned Chinese engineer) and operate it by themselves.

Second, I think it's very dogmatic to consider actions taken by uneducated, superstitious peasants to be backed by their real interest. They tend to do stupid things, like going on a Pogrom against Jews after being whipped up by Martin Luther.

The Chinese peasantry are no exception. They complained about a whole series of things during the last days of the Qing Dynasty----Like power pole being erected, railroad being built, and the supposedly cannibalistic Christian missionaries (ironic, isn't it?). Some recent Chinese scholars characterize the conflict between the Chinese peasantry and Western influence to be as religious struggle (between Daoists and Christians)---Though I do not fully agree with this assessment, their point is worth consideration.

In this case, you may be right.Resistance against foreign influence is indeed inflamed by the economic woes brought by Western capitalism. But how big of a factor this played I am not certain.

In the Tang Dynasty, peasant rebels led by Huang Chao massacred the Arabs in Canton, even though it's hard to image them having anything to do with the economic woes of Tang peasants.

I know that the Qing economy was devastated by the lethal combination of the "Christian" rebellion, Western loan-sharks and cheap British textile. However, how much of this the average Qing peasant understood is not clear.

For all we know, many, if not most of them did sincerely believe that power poles and railroads were evil plots to ruin China's feng shui; that Christian missionaries ate Chinese babies; and that the Daoist god wished them to wage a holy war against Christians.

I did not disagree with you in the beginning---I was just pointing out that silly superstitions DO play a part in history.

mel

27th November 2009, 06:20

If the discussion progresses, yes, but the thing that RSOC referred to was in a post from me responding to HC, so for now I'll leave it here.

Your original response to HC was divergent from the intended topic of this thread, and though it's interesting, really should have its own topic.

Dimentio

27th November 2009, 06:29

i see no reason why humans couldnt one day be able to form sexual relationships with humanoid AI machines, or even possibly VR projections from within the confines of a virtual world (ala star trek holodeck) but i'm at a loss to see how this could be meaningful to anyone.

I see a certain social detachment problem with that. An AI designed to accommodate the sexual needs of a human being is practically nothing else than an advanced sex toy. The problem is that it could actually make the social interaction of the person utilising such a toy worse of than before.

While human beings should be able to use such things, I do not necessarily think it is a good thing.

RedStarOverChina

27th November 2009, 06:44

I havent given this much thought, but what do you think: doesn't this kind of alienation negatively effect working class solidarity?

If we rely on machines on everything from a friendly chit-chat to fornication, where does that leave international or even neighborly solidarity?

Dimentio

27th November 2009, 06:47

This is - and what a luck it is - mainly a Japanese problem (for the moment).

The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change

27th November 2009, 10:52

You speak quite a lot of logic for a technocrat Dimentio.I agree with your thesis.And I also agree that this is a result of alienation caused by capitalism which in case of Japan is all too common :(

The Japanese have alot about robots becoming human as they don't really has the cultural residue of the belief in a soul.

what makes a human human for the west: a soul (traditionally)
I am not sure about that...As far as I know Shintoism is all about the spiritual world interfering with every day life etc etc...It is the belief that there is a spirit for everything, be it matter or an organism (I think they call them kamis).So I would say, with my limited knowledge of the religion, that it's closer to believing that the material world is just a projection of the spiritual one, than anything else.

Manifesto

29th November 2009, 04:57

Reminds me of this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html) for some reason still weird I mean its a electronics thats just a new level of desperate.

ZeroNowhere

29th November 2009, 08:19

So, is there any evidence that this is caused by alienation caused by capitalism, or are we just making shit up?

mel

29th November 2009, 09:08

So, is there any evidence that this is caused by alienation caused by capitalism, or are we just making shit up?

What sort of "evidence" for "alienation caused by capitalism" could ever be presented for anything? Emprical evidentiary claims are pretty much impossible to provide for any substantive claims about society.

It's pretty clear that when a person has descended so far out of the sphere of human interaction that they have entered into a relationship with a shoddily programmed video game character that they are a victim of some form of alienation, likely caused by participation in the capitalist system.

RedStarOverChina

30th November 2009, 00:59

So, is there any evidence that this is caused by alienation caused by capitalism, or are we just making shit up?
The idea of mass alienation as a unique development under capitalism/modern society is really a widely recognized phenomenon...Something that's not only observed by Marx. There's no use denying that things between individuals have changed greatly.

In the work of theorists such as Theodor Adorno (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Theodor_Adorno) and Zygmunt Bauman (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman), however, modernity commonly represents a move away from the central tenets of enlightenment (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Enlightenment_in_Western_secular_tradition) and toward nefarious processes of alienation, such as in commodity fetishism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Commodity_fetishism) and the events of the Holocaust (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Holocaust) (Adorno 1973; Bauman 1989).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

Dr Mindbender

30th November 2009, 16:47

If we rely on machines on everything from a friendly chit-chat to fornication, where does that leave international or even neighborly solidarity?

Some people are socially awkward and have severe problems initiating relationships, sexual or otherwise with other humans. Thats not to say that it is inherently necessary that people will feel compelled to start dating machines. People will still want babies, therein lies the continued necessity for relationships of the traditional biological type.

If however, the technology exists to alleviate the suffering of the socially challenged i see no progressive argument to deprive them of it.

You could argue if it was easier for possible for people to form sexual relationships with synthetic humans who were indifferent to things like lack of fashion sense or poor hygiene then it would be damaging to the capitalists such as clothes and perfume fashionistas who leech off our lack of self confidence in their attempts to get us to pay a fortune in clothes and smellies.

Another point i'd like to make, this sort of technology to me holds the key to solving the 'paedophile question'. Manufacture a few hundred android children, and put them into an enclosed community housing all the known paedophiles. Problem solved without the worry of re-offence or ethical quagmire of having to execute or castrate anyone.

piet11111

5th December 2009, 02:36

just a thought but could such a robot not be programmed to "train" someone into normal social behaviour.

even if its just small comments like "could you take a shower first ?" or something like that.

Dr Mindbender

5th December 2009, 16:09

Hit The North

5th December 2009, 16:47

To be honest this guy needs to find a real girl.

I disagree. Many males of his age spend months in denial, trying to placate a real-world girlfriend, before finally getting dumped so they can spend all their time with the real object of their affection: their gaming collection.

This guy is just cutting out the middle (wo)man.

Pogue

5th December 2009, 16:50

Well this guy is clearly just a nutter isn't he.

Dr Mindbender

5th December 2009, 18:46

I disagree. Many males of his age spend months in denial, trying to placate a real-world girlfriend, before finally getting dumped so they can spend all their time with the real object of their affection: their gaming collection.

This guy is just cutting out the middle (wo)man.

Dont you think its something of a bourgeoisie construct that all young men are co-erced to feel that they must become breeding studs? Raising children is an expensive affair, so it's easy to understand why the capitalist class are steadfast in undermining sexual lifestyle choices other than those that dont involve procreation.

Capitalists are truly technophobes, even in the sexual sense.

They are techonosexualphobes.

Well this guy is clearly just a nutter isn't he.

Indeed, damn him to hell with his deviant disgusting ways.

Floyce White

16th December 2009, 05:23

Yazman

16th December 2009, 05:32

Reminds me of a porn called something like "Dog Wedding." In that video, a beautiful young woman consummates with a dog. I suppose that she was getting even with some man in her life.

At any rate, masturbating onto a non-human thing is called "bestiality." It is a form of mental illness.

There's two errors here:

-bestiality isn't a catchall term for sexual interest in anything thats a "non-human thing." Your definition would seem to include plants and inanimate objects, when this term only applies to animals.

-It is hardly a "mental illness." I would like to know under whose definition it is considered a mental illness, because it isn't in the DSM in the vast majority of cases. It is only considered to be part of a mental illness only if it is accompanied by an impairment of normal functioning and severe stress or trauma of some sort.

*Viva La Revolucion*

16th December 2009, 07:19

Threads like this sometimes make me feel as though I'm in an ''I'm more left-wing than you'' competition.

In response to the original question, I'd imagine the human race would be extinct before AI reached such an advanced level. Not only that, there will always be a distinction between what are essentially robots and people, and it's more than the existence of a soul. I also think that - at least in this case - it does have something to do with the environment in which you live.

Dr Mindbender

17th December 2009, 00:57

In response to the original question, I'd imagine the human race would be extinct before AI reached such an advanced level. .

Oh, ever the optimist, arent you?! :confused:

Led Zeppelin

17th December 2009, 01:12

*Viva La Revolucion*

17th December 2009, 07:35

Oh, ever the optimist, arent you?! :confused:

Well it's entirely possible and it's only pessimistic if you view that as a bad thing; the human race can't last forever, we should just try and keep it in existence for as long as possible. I really don't see that as such a terrible thing, but perhaps that's just me. ;)

VientoLibre

18th December 2009, 17:06

So this may seem like a chit-chatty topic, but it got me thinking - when AI develops and robots would potentially become more human-like, would human-AI marriages become "normalized?" Would they be programmed in a way to disallow such relationships from forming? What does this say about humans?

Groom goes by the name of SAL9000? Sounds like a reference to something...

Floyce White

19th December 2009, 12:41

Led Zeppelin: "Purely out of curiosity; why would you watch that?"

The question implies the most-likely response, which is correct in this case. San Diego was way ahead of the rest of the world in computer and Internet usage in the late '90s, which is when I saw it. The newfound world tickled the curiosity.

Yazman: "bestiality isn't a catchall term for sexual interest in anything thats a 'non-human thing.' ...this term only applies to animals."

I disagree. To define "bestiality" as "beast-like" is to make the common (and very lazy) mistake of substituting etymologies for definitions.

Yazman: "I would like to know under whose definition it is considered a mental illness"

I refuse the classist concept of authority. Instead, I suggest that words are defined as they are used by lower-class activists in struggles. My experiences in struggles shaped my understanding.

Yazman: "...impairment of normal functioning..."

Turning to a non-human thing is itself proof of alienation so profound as to impair normal social functioning. (In other words, why didn't he go to a night club, go hang out in the student center, call up a woman to go have coffee, or some similar socialization?)

Dr Mindbender

19th December 2009, 16:52

Purely out of curiosity; why would you watch that?
Purely out of curiosity maybe?

Invincible Summer

22nd December 2009, 21:34

I disagree. To define "bestiality" as "beast-like" is to make the common (and very lazy) mistake of substituting etymologies for definitions.

Then please explain yourself further. The merriam-webster definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/BESTIALITY) indicates that it involves sexual activity between a human and an animal, or any "beast-like" activity. Finding sexual gratification by masturbating to a non-human thing isn't necessarily "beast like," which is sort of a condescending outlook.

And if you are referring to this Japanese man possibly "masturbating over" the video game character, then his brain processing the image/programmed personality of the character as sexually desirable is hardly "beast like," as a "beast" would probably not understand such things.

I refuse the classist concept of authority. Instead, I suggest that words are defined as they are used by lower-class activists in struggles. My experiences in struggles shaped my understanding.Wow aren't you the better person then. We're all just pretentious bougies that are totally out of touch... we all should learn from you, you true proletarian warrior you!

Some members of the working class are homophobic. Does that mean "gay" or "faggy" should be used to mean "stupid" or "bad?"

Yazman: "...impairment of normal functioning..."

Turning to a non-human thing is itself proof of alienation so profound as to impair normal social functioning. (In other words, why didn't he go to a night club, go hang out in the student center, call up a woman to go have coffee, or some similar socialization?)While you have a point in terms of the alienation, some people just can't do these things as easily as you make it seem.
As someone suffering from Social Anxiety Disorder, it's nearly impossible for me to even call semi-close friends/acquaintances to do things, or feel comfortable going to clubs, initiate conversations with random people, etc. If in the future I were to turn to an AI for a relationship because it was easier for me, would you deny me that just because it's not in your definition of "normal?"

Floyce White

25th December 2009, 09:51

Rise Like Lions: "...I were to turn to an AI for a relationship because it was easier for me, would you deny me that...?"

I already called it "mental illness." As with all behavioral disorders, abstinence from the offensive behavior is a key element of effective treatment. Whether or not you suffer from "social anxiety disorder" is irrelevant. (A quitting smoker will always find relapse into smoking to be "easier." The smoker need not lean on some other sickness as an excuse--such as coaddiction to caffeine in his daily coffee-and-cigarette break.)

Rise Like Lions: "Does that mean 'gay' or 'faggy' should be used to mean 'stupid' or 'bad?'"

Serious activists learn to avoid the ad hominem fallacy. Dabblers and hangers-on don't have any effect on theory or terminology.

Besides, if you mean "bad," say "bad." It's easier for native speakers of foreign languages.

Rise Like Lions: "Wow aren't you the better person then."

Ad hominem. Experience is beneficial to understanding. Neither experience nor inexperience make me a "better person" in some abstract moral sense.

Rise Like Lions: "The merriam-webster definition indicates..."

The activity of the common folk is the origin of all knowledge. Go to the source, and not to some dealer in second-hand goods.

Remember, schoolbooks only give you an idea of how a topic could be studied, how information could be organized, and so on. Real-life practitioners quickly outgrow the schoolbook models.

Sleeper

26th December 2009, 23:05

Number 16 Bus Shelter

27th December 2009, 04:10

It occurs to me that because this marriage was permitted, this video game character is accepted as, "Alive," in a certain sense. With that said, do you think the husband could reasonably face murder charges if he intentionally deletes her?

Haha,

traditionally, I'm against marriage, but I have no problem with this guy marrying a video game character. It makes life interesting, and redefines the traditional concept of marriage. I doubt it would be a 'good' thing for the world to exclusively have relationships with anime, but, optimistically, it will help to move the population in a more liberal direction, and make different forms of marriage more acceptable.
But, probably, it will just be used by the conservatives as an example of the lack of god and how people turn evil when allowed freedoms.

Sleeper

27th December 2009, 04:23

As an Anarchist, I don't know if you would necessarily be a fan of, "Survival of the Fittest," or not, but assuming that heterosexual women choose optimal heterosexual men as mates, I could see where you eventually arrive at such a low level of homo-sapien that an abstraction of artificial intelligence could be preferred for women or for men. Not only are you accurate in mentioning the movement of the population, but it might also serve to genetically improve the species as a whole if the trend really took hold.

Floyce White

27th December 2009, 15:43

In practice, most men and women wind up with the stupidest, most gullible, easiest-to-manipulate person of the opposite sex that he or she can trick into bed. Ever-stupider offspring are the result. Call it "devolution," that's the reality of human mating.

Invincible Summer

28th December 2009, 02:06

I already called it "mental illness." As with all behavioral disorders, abstinence from the offensive behavior is a key element of effective treatment. Whether or not you suffer from "social anxiety disorder" is irrelevant. (A quitting smoker will always find relapse into smoking to be "easier." The smoker need not lean on some other sickness as an excuse--such as coaddiction to caffeine in his daily coffee-and-cigarette break.)
How is it irrelevant if I suffer from SAD? It is a disorder that prevents me from interacting on a "normal" level with other human beings. You telling someone like me that I should just "abstain" from having social anxiety is insulting. If I preferred to be happy with an AI, who are you to tell me it's wrong? Sure, it's not the best solution, but you're basically saying you'd prevent someone like me from pursuing happiness just because it's not "normal," although no one is really being harmed but myself (in a way)?

And you still didn't explain yourself - how do you see defining "bestiality" as having "beast-like" sexual urges, or having sexual arousal from non-human animals as a "lazy mistake?" Why is your definition of a "mental illness" or "normal" better than the how the majority of RevLefters are reading the issue here?

Serious activists learn to avoid the ad hominem fallacy. Dabblers and hangers-on don't have any effect on theory or terminology.

Well I'm not trying to be the next Lenin, so I can deal with having little effect on theory.

My point is that you're seeming to strictly adhere to the idea that activists should be using words as defined by the "lower-class." Well, the "lower classes" (hell, all classes) use all sorts of jargon and lingo that can fall into the realm of homophobia and sexism, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily co-opt these terms.

Instead of dismissing me, why don't you address the points I raise?

Besides, if you mean "bad," say "bad." It's easier for native speakers of foreign languages
Tell that to the working classes of the world - everyone has their own colloquialisms and slang. But thanks for the tip :rolleyes:

Ad hominem. Experience is beneficial to understanding. Neither experience nor inexperience make me a "better person" in some abstract moral sense.
Yes, but lording it over people (fellow activists, no less) as if saying "I'm experienced, you're not, so I don't have to answer you" instead of simply explaining yourself comes off as condescending.

The activity of the common folk is the origin of all knowledge. Go to the source, and not to some dealer in second-hand goods.
So you're saying that the common understanding of "bestiality" is having sexual desires and urges directed towards any non-human thing?

I really think that most people understand it as having a sexual appetite for non-human species of animals. I guess we're just all "lazy" then?

And besides, lots of people go to the dictionary/encyclopedia to understand words and concepts anyway.

Again, lots of people use the term "gay" to mean something is bad or negative. Are you suggesting that this thinly-veiled homophobic slur should be co-opted as meaning "bad" because it's "from the source?"

Remember, schoolbooks only give you an idea of how a topic could be studied, how information could be organized, and so on. Real-life practitioners quickly outgrow the schoolbook models.
What's your point? You don't seem to have one except that everyone here except you is "out of touch" and amateur.

In practice, most men and women wind up with the stupidest, most gullible, easiest-to-manipulate person of the opposite sex that he or she can trick into bed. Ever-stupider offspring are the result. Call it "devolution," that's the reality of human mating.
So you're saying that pretty much everyone is the result of what you define as stupid, gullible individuals copulating? That either my fiancee or I (or both) are what you define as stupid/gullible and will have what you will perceive to be stupid/gullible children?

You're real friendly.

Floyce White

29th December 2009, 09:40

Rise Like Lions: "How is it irrelevant if I suffer from SAD?

As I said, suffering from one mental illness is not an excuse for self-destructive behavior that stems from a second mental illness.

Rise Like Lions: "how do you see defining 'bestiality' as having 'beast-like' sexual urges...?"

Dissembling. I define "bestiality" as a behavioral disorder characterized by masturbation onto non-human things.

Rise Like Lions: "you're seeming to strictly adhere to the idea that activists should be using words as defined by the 'lower-class.'"

Rise Like Lions: "So you're saying that the common understanding of 'bestiality' is having sexual desires and urges directed towards any non-human thing?"

No, I differentiate between the common (vulgar) understanding and the well-informed usage of long-time activists who discuss social phenomena.

Rise Like Lions: "...or having sexual arousal from non-human animals as a 'lazy mistake'?"

Straw man.

Rise Like Lions: "...lording it over people...condescending."

Ad hominem.

Rise Like Lions: "What's your point? You don't seem to have one"

Ridicule.

Really, you should drop the cheap debaters' tricks and consider the well-considered contributions of posters.

Rise Like Lions: "That either my fiancee or I (or both) are what you define as stupid/gullible and will have what you will perceive to be stupid/gullible children?"

If you're so smart, why do you use logical fallacies and sensationalism about "homophobia"? (Logical fallacies and distractions exist independent of my perceptions.)

piet11111

29th December 2009, 16:48

As I said, suffering from one mental illness is not an excuse for self-destructive behavior that stems from a second mental illness.

we allow alcohol and many of us would allow (soft) drugs but somehow a sexbot would be so self destructive that we should ban it ?

i do not see how that could be self destructive and even if that would be the case in the long run why should we care if someone chooses to do it with such a robot ?

to me it comes down to a freedom of choice argument and since nobody else gets harmed i would say let them have their fun.

mel

29th December 2009, 17:26

we allow alcohol and many of us would allow (soft) drugs but somehow a sexbot would be so self destructive that we should ban it ?

i do not see how that could be self destructive and even if that would be the case in the long run why should we care if someone chooses to do it with such a robot ?

to me it comes down to a freedom of choice argument and since nobody else gets harmed i would say let them have their fun.

There's a difference between using a "sexbot" and a person marrying a "sexbot". The former is using a tool for what its been designed (ignoring for a moment all of the implications of such a tool existing in the first place), and the second speaks of a strong emotional attachment to something which can only ever pretend at thinking or having emotions. The latter points to somebody in such a poor mental state that they have fallen in love with the equivalent of a speak 'n' spell with genitals attached.

Dr Mindbender

29th December 2009, 17:50

mel

29th December 2009, 18:16

If we got to a stage where a synthetic person was advanced enough to have both a perfectly formed and functioning human body and sentient AI i still dont understand why there would be anything wrong marrying him/her/it.

That would be a far cry from a "sexbot".

Why are we creating synthetic people with sentient AI? I feel like that would be causing more problems than it could ever solve. What would be the application of such a technology?

The Red Next Door

30th December 2009, 06:50

The reason why people like this do this is because a real relationship will hurt them and they are afraid of being hurt. How can you have a relationship without getting hurt at the end? A video game girl or nice find character from a manga.

Floyce White

30th December 2009, 07:02

Sexbots. Hmm. Sex as a commodity already exists. To the sex capitalists, prostitute labor is extremely cheap, easily replaced, and well scapegoated. To the prostitute labor, they are not the same as the dollars paid for their acts, and their misery and drug abuse at work is real life--not "synthetic." So is the whole "virtual sex" business a form of ideological struggle of capitalists against workers--and especially against sex workers?

piet11111: "to me it comes down to a freedom of choice argument and since nobody else gets harmed i would say let them have their fun."

Apparently you have not yet had the opportunity to talk to hospital workers. Every disease has a gradient of severity. People with very severe bestiality stick things into their bodies that cause medical emergencies. Untreated mental illness doesn't affect only the sick individual. It devastates their families and friends as well.

As far as "allow[ing]" alcohol, the end of mass merchandizing will end the mass consumption of many commodities--even if the workers at breweries and distilleries do not destroy their own workplaces. Another view is that workers after the revolution will be relieved of so many worries and stresses that they will lose the habit of anaesthetizing their brains.

You might hypothesize that any physically unnecessary use of anaesthetics is drug abuse and is irrational and a form of mental illness. You may compare this hypothetical mental illness to the mental illness I hypothesize of any, even supposedly rational, masturbation onto a non-human thing.

You raise a good point--no matter that you argued a different direction. This implicit argument is valid and very strong.

Dr Mindbender

30th December 2009, 17:09

That would be a far cry from a "sexbot".

Why are we creating synthetic people with sentient AI? I feel like that would be causing more problems than it could ever solve.
well, moreover if certain people feel genuinely content with a blow up doll/ real doll/ synthetic human regardless of its AI level i dont see why leftists should regard this as a threat or with revulsion. We've got no more right to say marriage with a 'sexbot' is wrong any more than reactionaries have a right to say gay marriage is wrong. Protecting the 'sanctity' of marriage against sexual diversity is the business of the right wing, not ours.

What would be the application of such a technology?

as we already know people might want 'tailor made' AI sentience for the purposes of relationships/marriage.

secondly depending how you interpret the metaphysics then by the time machines were that smart, humans could possibly withdraw from ALL fields of work, even the skilled ones. Although some would argue that with sentience comes the right to be treated equally.

piet11111

30th December 2009, 17:30

There's a difference between using a "sexbot" and a person marrying a "sexbot". The former is using a tool for what its been designed (ignoring for a moment all of the implications of such a tool existing in the first place), and the second speaks of a strong emotional attachment to something which can only ever pretend at thinking or having emotions. The latter points to somebody in such a poor mental state that they have fallen in love with the equivalent of a speak 'n' spell with genitals attached.

i have read about a woman that had married a guillotine i agree that that is unhealthy behavior that would force her into social isolation.
but she does not want to change and i doubt if forcing help on her would be the best thing for her assuming that help is actually possible.
any help forced on such people would only make them miserable and if thats all we can accomplish it would be better to just let them be if they do not harm others.

That would be a far cry from a "sexbot".

Why are we creating synthetic people with sentient AI? I feel like that would be causing more problems than it could ever solve. What would be the application of such a technology?

sentient AI would be perfect for doing work that is too dangerous or tiresome for people.
just think of a nurse that wont get tired and is always alert (personal experience in a hospital where i had to wait for over half an hour for a nurse to come fix a pump that applied painkillers while the alarm on the damn thing was wailing at 3 in the morning if i was not attached to the thing i would have thrown it out the window)
also as a companion to the elderly or for instance to clean up beaches after an oil spill there are countless applications outside of the sexbot aspect.

Sexbots. Hmm. Sex as a commodity already exists. To the sex capitalists, prostitute labor is extremely cheap, easily replaced, and well scapegoated. To the prostitute labor, they are not the same as the dollars paid for their acts, and their misery and drug abuse at work is real life--not "synthetic." So is the whole "virtual sex" business a form of ideological struggle of capitalists against workers--and especially against sex workers?

piet11111: "to me it comes down to a freedom of choice argument and since nobody else gets harmed i would say let them have their fun."

Apparently you have not yet had the opportunity to talk to hospital workers. Every disease has a gradient of severity. People with very severe bestiality stick things into their bodies that cause medical emergencies. Untreated mental illness doesn't affect only the sick individual. It devastates their families and friends as well.

i was not talking about people that where swallowing razorblades i was talking about those that want to marry robots.
clearly self destructive behavior that directly threatens their lives (as opposed to marrying a guillotine that is only odd behaviour) demands direct intervention.

As far as "allow[ing]" alcohol, the end of mass merchandizing will end the mass consumption of many commodities--even if the workers at breweries and distilleries do not destroy their own workplaces. Another view is that workers after the revolution will be relieved of so many worries and stresses that they will lose the habit of anaesthetizing their brains.

yeah i doubt that i would not want to give up my after work duveltje (beer) as its something i really enjoy.

You might hypothesize that any physically unnecessary use of anaesthetics is drug abuse and is irrational and a form of mental illness.

i doubt that you would be able to find any psychiatrist that would say that drinking beer or smoking some pot is a form of mental illness.

mel

30th December 2009, 17:43

well, moreover if certain people feel genuinely content with a blow up doll/ real doll/ synthetic human regardless of its AI level i dont see why leftists should regard this as a threat or with revulsion. We've got no more right to say marriage with a 'sexbot' is wrong any more than reactionaries have a right to say gay marriage is wrong. Protecting the 'sanctity' of marriage against sexual diversity is the business of the right wing, not ours.

As I said. There is a difference between marrying an object and marrying a person. It's not about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, but realizing that marriage to a party who can neither understand the concept nor consent is symptomatic of some kind of mental disorder. I don't care if somebody masturbates with a blow up doll, I do care if somebody tries to marry one as if it is a sentient being. That is indicative of a problem.

as we already know people might want 'tailor made' AI sentience for the purposes of relationships/marriage.

If you would be disgusted by people asking for human beings genetically engineered to be servile and custom made as sex slaves, then you should be disgusted by people asking for "tailor made" sentience-level AI. Even if they were non-sexual companions, it would be a forced friendship in the most literal sense of the word. The fact of the matter is that self-aware AI needs to be granted the same rights as humans. If these are machines that can think and feel (in whatever sense we understand feeling) then these are machines that should not be sold into slavery because they're "just machines". In any case, I don't understand why people would want fully sentient sex slaves.

Even now, cyber sexbots are fooling young men into fooling around with them, and making them think they are human. A lot of people who would be showing interest in sexbots wouldn't need it to have human-level sentience or even be particularly intelligent at all. If it can say "oh baby" and follow basic sexual instructions, it would be every misogynist's dream.

secondly depending how you interpret the metaphysics then by the time machines were that smart, humans could possibly withdraw from ALL fields of work, even the skilled ones. Although some would argue that with sentience comes the right to be treated equally.

I'd be one that would argue that with human intelligence comes a right to be treated equally. I hope all leftists would.

It's also part of the reason creating such intelligences may not be productive. We have so many people already, and unless we're going to make fully sentient AIs second-class citizens and sell them into slavery and sex slavery (something I hope leftists wouldn't do, but I've been surprised by the depravity of so-called leftists before), it seems to me that there isn't much motivation to create a fully sentient AI.

mel

30th December 2009, 18:10

i have read about a woman that had married a guillotine i agree that that is unhealthy behavior that would force her into social isolation.
but she does not want to change and i doubt if forcing help on her would be the best thing for her assuming that help is actually possible.
any help forced on such people would only make them miserable and if thats all we can accomplish it would be better to just let them be if they do not harm others.

It really isn't that simple. I just don't think a government has any business recognizing a so-called "marriage" between a person and an object. If they want to have some ceremony, go for it, but if one party cannot give knowing consent, there really isn't much else you can say about the subject.

sentient AI would be perfect for doing work that is too dangerous or tiresome for people.
just think of a nurse that wont get tired and is always alert (personal experience in a hospital where i had to wait for over half an hour for a nurse to come fix a pump that applied painkillers while the alarm on the damn thing was wailing at 3 in the morning if i was not attached to the thing i would have thrown it out the window)
also as a companion to the elderly or for instance to clean up beaches after an oil spill there are countless applications outside of the sexbot aspect.

Intelligent, yes. Sentient, no. There's a fine line. On one side, you have machines intelligent enough to perform the task at hand. On the other side, you have machines so intelligent that they are self-aware and have desires, which I'm sure does not include being sold into 24 hour work slavery.

piet11111

31st December 2009, 16:06

It really isn't that simple. I just don't think a government has any business recognizing a so-called "marriage" between a person and an object. If they want to have some ceremony, go for it, but if one party cannot give knowing consent, there really isn't much else you can say about the subject.

why bother recognizing marriage at all ?

Intelligent, yes. Sentient, no. There's a fine line. On one side, you have machines intelligent enough to perform the task at hand. On the other side, you have machines so intelligent that they are self-aware and have desires, which I'm sure does not include being sold into 24 hour work slavery.

if they would request equal rights we should grant them but for the next 50 years i do not see that happen.
besides for all we know their intelligence actually makes them want to help us what else could they do in their spare time anyway ? they wont eat sleep have sex or any of the other human distractions.
and i dont think they would just shut themselves off for those hours they do not have to work either.

Sean

31st December 2009, 16:26

I'm all for this as a step to no borders. "I'll have you know, Mr. Immigration authority, that I stuck my dick in a toaster on numerous occasions, and it was made in Tiawan. Say hi to the nice gentleman, Miss Toasty!"
Sexually fulfilling relationships between humans and machines has been on the cards ever since they put a knowing grin and come to bed eyes on Henry Hoover.

http://handheld-vacuumcleaners.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/henry_hoover-vacuum.jpg

I can just imagine the next time some poor bastard is in a vegetative state. On the one side, the religious nuts will be screaming "Don't pull the plug, that person has a right to live." on the other, nerds "Don't pull the plug, that life support machine has 3 kids!"

Seriously though, whatever floats your boat. I don't believe animals should have human rights so don't expect me to be in love with this idea. Its just masturbation and I think we should focus on getting the whole human rights thing across the board first before looking into the pressing matter of whether an Aibo can reasonably give consent when its batteries are done.

mel

31st December 2009, 19:22

why bother recognizing marriage at all ?

Well, leaving aside the economic reasons the state recognizes marriages under capitalism, as they will be likely irrelevant, there are still plenty of other reasons for the state to recognize some form of registered union of some group of people. How does the state know who should have the power to make decisions about you should you fall into a coma? What about who is allowed to see you when you're in the hospital (a lot of times that is restricted to "family" only, it's one of the perks of being married that homosexual couples miss out on, being able to see their loved ones in the hospital because the state won't recognize their 30 year union). Then there's the issue of transferrence of personal property after death, or the reconciliation of personal property claims during a relationship split. Who gets to keep living in the house and who has to find another one? If children were born of the relationship and the parents had decided to care for them, then what?

Suffice it to say, there are plenty of reasons for the state to keep track of people who have made a life committment to one another, whether it's a single marriage or a group marriage, with whatever communal living arrangements, signing a marriage license of some sort (having a registered union) would simplify a lot of the problems posed by the above situations.

if they would request equal rights we should grant them but for the next 50 years i do not see that happen.
besides for all we know their intelligence actually makes them want to help us what else could they do in their spare time anyway ? they wont eat sleep have sex or any of the other human distractions.
and i dont think they would just shut themselves off for those hours they do not have to work either.

Who knows, we're talking about sentience here, not animal level intelligence or an intelligent machine. A sentient AI has the ability to feel and perceive themselves as a subject. Again, if humans were being genetically engineered to be servile and especially suited to hard labor, would you support allowing them to be slaves, since serving others is in their nature? I damn well wouldn't, and I can't justify a leftist enslaving another thinking, feeling, self-perceptive being with a human-imposed limit on how much it's allowed to conceive of and beg for freedom.

In any case, I don't see an AI of that capability arising for some time, and it's a nearly impossible thing to understand and conceive of without understanding human consciousness. However, rest assured, the problems here are a lot more complicated than these just being really smart robots. We're talking about an AI that can feel happy, sad, enjoyment, and no telling how many other emotions in some capacity or another.

Dr Mindbender

31st December 2009, 21:05

As I said. There is a difference between marrying an object and marrying a person.
..and as i said who is to say what constitutes a 'legitimate' relationship?

It's not about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, but realizing that marriage to a party who can neither understand the concept nor consent is symptomatic of some kind of mental disorder.
I think branding someones sexual preference of any sort a 'mental disorder' a slippery slope and rather unhelpful to the argument. Even the right wing would tread carefully around branding paedophiles for instance, mentally ill. A person is not mentally ill if they behave to the norm in every instance bar what they get up to behind closed doors.

If you would be disgusted by people asking for human beings genetically engineered to be servile and custom made as sex slaves, then you should be disgusted by people asking for "tailor made" sentience-level AI. Even if they were non-sexual companions, it would be a forced friendship in the most literal sense of the word. The fact of the matter is that self-aware AI needs to be granted the same rights as humans. If these are machines that can think and feel (in whatever sense we understand feeling) then these are machines that should not be sold into slavery because they're "just machines". In any case, I don't understand why people would want fully sentient sex slaves.

Even now, cyber sexbots are fooling young men into fooling around with them, and making them think they are human. A lot of people who would be showing interest in sexbots wouldn't need it to have human-level sentience or even be particularly intelligent at all. If it can say "oh baby" and follow basic sexual instructions, it would be every misogynist's dream.

I'd be one that would argue that with human intelligence comes a right to be treated equally. I hope all leftists would.

It's also part of the reason creating such intelligences may not be productive. We have so many people already, and unless we're going to make fully sentient AIs second-class citizens and sell them into slavery and sex slavery (something I hope leftists wouldn't do, but I've been surprised by the depravity of so-called leftists before), it seems to me that there isn't much motivation to create a fully sentient AI.

...sigh.

but heres the thing. Making machines do our bidding because of their being machines regardless of their AI isnt a clear cut between right and wrong. I've wrestled with this one all today and what i conclude is that machines owe their existance to people which places them below people. Moreover, they arent people.

The argument about intelligence to me, is null and void. We don't give animals preferential treatment on the basis of intelligence. Now i appreciate this analogy probably applies more to the western world but despite their being smarter than dogs, we consume pigs wholesalely and are generally disgusted by the thought of eating dog flesh and in fact allow them to reside in our homes as though they were family members. Surely if we follow the logic provided earlier, then if there was any justice the role of pigs and dogs would be reversed?

Id further argue the point of sentience isnt a reliable argument because the distinction between sentinent and non is murky and ambiguous. A fully grown dolphin has the intelligence and mental faculties of a 7 year old child. No one would argue a 7 year old child is non-sentient so why not award dolphins with human rights too? What of other species like chimps who show similar gifts and human like characteristics?

mel

31st December 2009, 23:00

..and as i said who is to say what constitutes a 'legitimate' relationship?

I'd say the ability for the plurality of parties to give consent would be a pretty good benchmark. It excludes rape of all kinds, beastiality, and whatever else, and includes any kind of interpersonal relationship imaginable between people. That being said, what a person does with their toaster behind closed doors isn't my nor the state's business. The state doesn't have to recognize or legitimize a marriage between a person and their toaster, however.

I think branding someones sexual preference of any sort a 'mental disorder' a slippery slope and rather unhelpful to the argument. Even the right wing would tread carefully around branding paedophiles for instance, mentally ill. A person is not mentally ill if they behave to the norm in every instance bar what they get up to behind closed doors.

Ultimately, mental disorders really do break down to describing behaviors that for one reason or another, are so far outside of accepted societal norms that those people can't function in normal human society, or that greatly impair healthy relationships with other people. Even people who support a more open, less stigmatized dialog with pedophiles, like TAT, recognize that it's a disorder people suffer from. The right hesitates to make that claim not because they think it's normal or ok, but because they'd rather paint pedophiles as universally evil predators.

...sigh.

but heres the thing. Making machines do our bidding because of their being machines regardless of their AI isnt a clear cut between right and wrong. I've wrestled with this one all today and what i conclude is that machines owe their existance to people which places them below people. Moreover, they arent people.

The argument about intelligence to me, is null and void. We don't give animals preferential treatment on the basis of intelligence. Now i appreciate this analogy probably applies more to the western world but despite their being smarter than dogs, we consume pigs wholesalely and are generally disgusted by the thought of eating dog flesh and in fact allow them to reside in our homes as though they were family members. Surely if we follow the logic provided earlier, then if there was any justice the role of pigs and dogs would be reversed?

There is a difference between talking about intellgence levels and about sentience, maybe that difference is too technical for the uninitiated, but it's important and has little to nothing to do with "intelligence" as scuh.

Dr Mindbender

31st December 2009, 23:08

I'd say the ability for the plurality of parties to give consent would be a pretty good benchmark. It excludes rape of all kinds, beastiality, I'd say thats a pretty arbitrary benchmark. If people dont feel compelled to be involved is a 'plurality of parties' relationship then i dont want to go down the road of saying thats wrong or less legitimate to my personal preferences provided they're not harming anyone else. Paedophilia being a clear cut of wrong vs right, beastiality less so unless you want to take the hypocritical and anti-materialist stance of not condemning meat eating as well.

There is a difference between talking about intellgence levels and about sentience, maybe that difference is too technical for the uninitiated, but it's important and has little to nothing to do with "intelligence" as scuh.

If you refer back to my last post i covered the point about sentience.

Floyce White

2nd January 2010, 04:46

mel

3rd January 2010, 01:13

melbicimni: "I'd say the ability for the plurality of parties to give consent would be a pretty good benchmark."

So sadism isn't a mental disorder as long as a sadist abuses only masochists? Masochism isn't a sickness because all of their abusers implicitly gave consent?

No. People with behavioral disorders have a compromised ability to give informed consent. They have a compromised ability to make rational judgments--especially concerning their own behaviors.

Meaning that my original benchmark, "The ability for the parties to give [informed] consent" (I thought the "informed" was implied, though I should have stated it explicitly) is accurate.

If somebody has an impaired ability to give consent, then they can't give consent.

Floyce White

3rd January 2010, 07:59

Thank you, melbicimni.

So, hypothetically, if bestiality is a mental illness, then anyone who suffers from the illness has an impaired ability to give consent. The impairment is in proportion to the degree of severity that the individual suffers from the disease. Degree of severity of a behavioral disorder can be determined by observation.

This logic can be applied to other diseases: alcoholism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc.

It is not necessary to find a psychiatrist who believes that any non-medical alcohol use is abuse and indicative of disease. An argument can be proved without appeal to authority. Same with finding some authoritative quote about the definition and characteristics of bestiality. The strength of our arguments and counterarguments suffice here. Moreover, we should be confident in our abilities to analyze the world.

To sum up: people who perform bestiality may not be capable of making rational decisions about their performances.