Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3671 to 3675 (5th to 9th February 2018)
ckridge:
--- Quote from: Aenno on 07 Feb 2018, 18:34 ---
No-no-no, displays of arousal are 100% social. Arousal itself isn't. Arousal is arousal and defined biologically (and actually that's why libido is lowering with age - when you would be perfectly ridden of hormones working in arousal, oxytocin for example, you would quite probably be dead, or at least have quite serious problems). How society and person itself reacting on people showing arousal is completly another matter.
I'm sorry for bringing example, if somebody would see it as offensive, that's an example I had in university.
Let's imagine you feel arousal when see plush chairs. You feel arousal, but in the society you lives it's no-go. People demand to you to conform and feel arousal to a woman who has the face of a twelve-year-old girl, the breasts of a nursing mother, and the body of a boy athlete (let's use US Target for simplicity), but you can't and plush chairs is your thing. You're shunned as freak by people around, "that's ok to feel arousal to US Target, but plush chairs? whats wrong with you?". Hello, social rejection.
. . .
Actually it's called "Qualia problem" - how to prove that my sensual experience is correlated with yours in any way - and is one of the most heatenly debated questions of modern psychology. :) But with arousal it's quite simpler then with, for example, color perception. Arousal have physiological markers, no markers - no arousal.
--- End quote ---
>Arousal is arousal and defined biologically . . .
>Arousal have physiological markers, no markers - no arousal.
>Let's imagine you feel arousal when see plush chairs.
From these passages, I gather that you mean that the object of arousal may be entirely socially determined, since it does not seem possible that some section of DNA codes for attraction to chairs, no matter how curvaceous, cozy, plushy, and compliant; but that the sensation of arousal is 100% biological. That narrows down the field of argument a lot.
Let me propose a thought-experiment: Suppose someone goes to their doctor and says "I'm sexually dysfunctional. I desire my spouse intensely, but my body can't respond properly. The frustration is killing me." The doctor hooks the patient up to some instruments and directs them to think longingly of their spouse, and says "No, you are mistaken. Your erectile tissue is not tumescent when you think about your spouse, and since arousal is 100% biological, that means you aren't feeling desire. There is no problem here." Would the doctor's response be correct? If not, and if arousal is 100% biological, why not?
>Actually it's called "Qualia problem"
You argue from analogy here, writing that since humans have bodies analogous to our own, we have better reason to believe that they have sensations like our own than we would have for believing that robots did, regardless of what robots claimed. This argument is invalid. We decided that those neural structures correspond to those sensations by asking humans what they felt and then seeing what neural structures are activated when they say they feel that way. The fundamental evidence was the assertion of a feeling. The neural structure's involvement in that feeling was deduced on the basis of the assertion. Denying someone else's assertion that they feel that way because they haven't got the neural structure would be disregarding equally good evidence for no good reason.
I am going to synopsize my views on the subject of robot desire in the QC universe briefly and then leave off discussing it here, since we should be talking mostly about Faye's pillow thoughts now. We can pick it up in your topic if you want.
AIs in this universe are largely self-programming. They have learning programs and built-in goals, both quite flexible. In all probability, they are being built mostly by other post-Singularity AIs who are smarter than humans, reasonably well-disposed toward humans for some mysterious reason, and deeply averse to any interference in AI free will.
A subset of AIs are interested in friendship with humans, and learn -- program themselves, if you will -- about humans just as humans do, by immersing themselves in human culture. In this way, they learn what is thought desirable, beautiful, estimable, seductive, intoxicating, and so on, and they internalize these values, just as humans do.
AIs who are interested in associating with humans put on bodies for this purpose. Their bodies have automatic stress reactions producing simple, powerful mental events that are analogous to but not identical with ones humans have under similar circumstances. Just as with humans, these simple, powerful sensations are capable of a very wide set of possible interpretations depending on the context and on what part of the human sociocultural psychosexual matrix the robot has become embedded in. The same basic sensations may be experienced as fear, sadness, anger, pleasurable excitement, arousal, drunkenness, desire, or any combination of these depending on circumstance and on whom the robot has learned to be.
I am pretty sure that if an AI wished to consummate their learned desires sexually, they would have to download an extra application. We know that they can run pleasure whenever they want, but find it empty as an isolated experience. A simple robot application for having sex with humans might go something like this:
1. Make touching the human pleasurable.
2. Make being touched by the human pleasurable.
3. Make signs of pleasure from the human pleasurable.
4. Let the pleasure build to some kind of release and then drop off sharply, lest the robot persist to the point that the human becomes over-tired.
Aenno:
--- Quote ---I am going to synopsize my views on the subject of robot desire in the QC universe briefly and then leave off discussing it here, since we should be talking mostly about Faye's pillow thoughts now. We can pick it up in your topic if you want.
--- End quote ---
I'd like to, because it really feels as off-topic here.
ckridge:
OK, respond there, and I will reply there.
ckridge:
I feel faintly voyeuristic and guilty about looking in on them sleeping and on Faye's night thoughts. If it were a novel, I would only be inside her head. If it were a movie, I would only see. Here I see and am inside her head. Odd that such a simple form would be able to do something like that.
Case:
--- Quote from: fayelovesbubbles on 07 Feb 2018, 22:46 ---To be honest, I wouldn't object to someone trying to fix mine. Blergh.
--- End quote ---
My high-school 'friends' idea of "fixing my love life" was schlepping a slightly underage vague acquaintance to our graduation ball without an invitation, aiming her at me, and watching the results from a safe distance. Moment I saw her, I realized that:
a) Those morons' idea of "fixing someone's lovelife" was pretty much: "We've seen him interacting friendly-like with her once while he was tending bar, ergo it must be twue wuv!"
b) "OhShit this could be a crush!"
c) Standing in front of a guy three years your senior that you might have a vague crush on, at his invite-only graduation ball, without an invitation ... must be one of the most humiliating environments to get your crush crushed in.
All those things running through my head, in a split second. Guess what comes out of my mouth?
"Uhmmmmmhiiiiii!!!??? What are you doing here?"
And of course, after that spurt of literary genius my mind freezes up and my face pounces at the chance of perfecting its grasp of the 'mortified rictus'-set of expressions.
We ran into each other 10 years later. She offered me a lift from the train station, then kicked me out of the car in some remote part of town. Being the Soul-and-confidence-crushing-Nemesis of someone else's discovery of their Eros is ... perplexing, highly overrated and sometimes it requires astonishingly little actual action on your part. Srsly, a tendency to freeze right after you stuck your foot in your mouth and a gaggle of brainless frenemies appears fully sufficient.
Thanks, 'Friends'!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version