Psionic in Utopia

[aono]

So that's what I calls "changing meaning in the middle of the discussion".
Lifestyle is a physical description about how your life is actually going. "I'm fasting until Christmas" - it's a simple example of lifestyle. Does it speaks anything about your beliefs? No it doesn't - you can be Christian, your mother can be Christian and you don't want to make her sad, maybe you're living in traditionaly christian region and it's local tradition, maybe you have scientific data that fasting until middle of December is healthy.
Belief system is some ideas that defines your lifestyle. "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." - it's a "simple" example of belief.
But you actually takes everything that define person - lifestyle, belief system, professional occupation, sphere of intrests, methods - and declare them all the same. I know, @BlackUmbrellas, you're not disputing with me - can you just say, are you agree with @Arkangilos when he said "belief system and lifestyle are the same"?

 

[Arkangilos]

No, that's not a lifestyle. A lifestyle is how you choose to live your life. Fasting isn't a lifestyle, it's an action taken as part of a lifestyle.

Maybe it's because you aren't a native English speaker?

 

[aono]

Maybe it's because you aren't a native English speaker?

Maybe - that's why I checking myself with a dictionaries. Yeah, it was said before that it's not good way in philosophical discussions, but I don't know another way - because even native English speaker actually can be wrong, and because actually philosophical discussions actually build around "how do you define that word you used".

So, lifestyle by Webster:
"the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture". Can we actually say - "It's their typical way - to fast on Christmas"? I believe so; feel free to correct me.

Belief by Webster:
"1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing <her belief in God> <a belief in democracy> <I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.> <contrary to popular belief>
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed <an individual's religious or political beliefs>; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group <the beliefs of the Catholic Church>
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence <belief in the validity of scientific statements>"

So I can't see here in this definitions that "lifestyle" and "belief" is the same thing. Belief and lifestyle can be different - I can actually be confident I should fast, but not fasting, right? They can be linked, but they're not the same. From example - "She envied the lavish lifestyles of wealthy people." - she definitly don't envy their beliefs (actually I can't even imagine how it is - to envy beliefs), isn't she?

Just in case. I'm not trolling. I'm actually not even have presupposition you're trolling or making conscious frauds (but I believe you actually do incorrect merging and generalization). I'm trying to understand what are you saying and oppose (or agree) with it, just it.

EDIT: One more thing. Call it "professional deformation", but I have very big habit to stick to words and it's meanings. When you says "all beings that are not blanks have souls" in context of Warhammer, necrons (who are beings, right?) IS counter-example, it can't be refuted by "they're not alive". As I know it's typical scientific methodology, including philosophy and theology.
Also sorry, I didn't notice you're edited your post and asked info about AM psychic servitors. Sure. It's "Transmat links", White Dwarf 178, p. 44. As I recall, there is actual debats is servitors retain their souls or it's actual death in-universe, but it will take a time for me to check all that data I have for WH40 to actually find a proof. I have quite a hoard.
But even then, I believe, it's safe to say "servitors haven't spiritualistic lifestyle". Or beliefs. Are you disagree?

 

[Arkangilos]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_(sociology)
"The term lifestyle can denote the interests, opinions, behaviours, and behavioural orientations of an individual, group, or culture."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
"The Cambridge English Dictionary states that culture is 'the way of life, especially the general customs and belief, of a particular group of people at a particular time.'"

"In the words of anthropologist E.B. Tylor, it is 'that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."'

If you want I can go on. I've also got actual textbooks handy, but it's easier for you to verify those than my textbooks from college.

You can't just go off of a dictionary. Dictionaries only give a very brief statement of the word. I don't know how other languages work, but in English words are far more complex.

Interestingly, apparently quantum theory is actually against Materialism, at least from what I just read.

 

[Arkangilos]

"Most of Hinduismand transcendentalism regards all matter as an illusion called Maya, blinding humans from knowing "the truth".

This seems to be along the thinking of spiritualism -> psi in this game. Basically, while materialists *believe* they can one day explain and use it, their belief system blinds them to the truth.

 

[aono]

I learned to be very accurate to use Wikipedia, on any language. Wikipedia defines Spiritualism as "Spiritualism is the belief that the spirits of the dead have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. The afterlife, or the "spirit world", is seen by spiritualists, not as a static place, but as one in which spirits continue to evolve.", surely it's not something we speaks about here; and even if you take philosophical article, it would be "the notion, shared by a wide variety of systems of thought, that there is an immaterial reality that cannot be perceived by the senses." By the way, Wikipedia links into Meriam-Webster to define lifestyle, and I posted that link there, nothing about culture. That's ok.
But yeah, I agree. Culture definitly including typical way of life AND beliefs, it's more broad thing that lifestyle (different lifestyles can be included to one culture, don't you agree?), overarching term. But cultural norm can be not based on belief, but be based on, let's say, tradition, why not? Or, you posted about Maya up here - do you believe that brahmin and shudra had same lifestyle (when they, actually, had same beliefs and, as somebody can argue, same culture)?

I don't know how other languages work, but in English words are far more complex.

Problem is I have no way to know beforehand which part of this complex meaning do you use. That's actually why I asks people to define terms I haven't sure how do they use, and was believed I'm trying to fraud (actually quite the opposite - I'm trying to argue what people mean, not I want them to mean). If you take another definition in the source you used, you actually will be wrong, and with words as "culture" or "spiritualism" or "materialism" or "consciousness" it's quite often thing. Even on English. The only method is to ask questions and use examples.
Also that's it. I'm keeping in mind that words is very complex. But at least in Russian (and in English when I'm working) it's kind of custom when you use a complex word with different meanings and meets misunderstanding, you explain the word - if you want to be understood, sure.

So. Are we on same term, if I'd say that "spiritualistic culture is a culture based on tenets that that perception begets reality and there is some basic meaning beyond physical reality", and it's actually exhaustive definition, at least for game context?

This seems to be along the thinking of spiritualism -> psi in this game. Basically, while materialists *believe* they can one day explain and use it, their belief system blinds them to the truth.

Yes - and you can't scientifically research the Truth beyond Maya. Also you can't achieve Brahman until you actually get that world around you don't exists, that every material thing puts you in chains. Actually it's good point to explain why you don't need to know _truth_ to achieve psi - because magical (psionic, tapas-based) powers is part of maya. Hindu mystic will tell that Force actually is Maya - and sith, who trying to achieve freedom through passions, doing it wrong and only will stain his karma.
But I disagree in another way. I believe the sourse of the thinking of spiritualism -> psi in this game is false equaling "modern science is materialism, classical religion and quasireligion beliefs are spiritualism". That's not how commonly psi working in sci-fi, and that's not how actually materialism or scientism or rationalism works. And actually I believes it's not how spiritualism works.
Especially because I don't like one or another ethos system proclaimed as "true" and "correct".

 

[Opizze]

Speaking as a fully paid up member of the scientific community here, but if some religious group started actually being able to read minds and teleport themselves vast distances, you can be damn sure we'd be studying it. And if it defied all attempts at scientific explanation it'd end up becoming empirical science, not knowing why something works never stops us making use of it. I mean the whole point of science is to study the universe as it is, not how you think it should be.

Paradox have locked psionics to the spiritualist ethos for gameplay reasons, end of. Trying to come up with some convoluted reasoning will fail because the decision doesnt make any sense lore wise, hence the 10 pages of arguments.

Thank you. It's arbitrary and i dont agree with it. End of argument for me.

 

[Arkangilos]

I learned to be very accurate to use Wikipedia, on any language. Wikipedia defines Spiritualism as "Spiritualism is the belief that the spirits of the dead have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. The afterlife, or the "spirit world", is seen by spiritualists, not as a static place, but as one in which spirits continue to evolve.", surely it's not something we speaks about here; and even if you take philosophical article, it would be "the notion, shared by a wide variety of systems of thought, that there is an immaterial reality that cannot be perceived by the senses." By the way, Wikipedia links into Meriam-Webster to define lifestyle, and I posted that link there, nothing about culture. That's ok.
But yeah, I agree. Culture definitly including typical way of life AND beliefs, it's more broad thing that lifestyle (different lifestyles can be included to one culture, don't you agree?), overarching term. But cultural norm can be not based on belief, but be based on, let's say, tradition, why not? Or, you posted about Maya up here - do you believe that brahmin and shudra had same lifestyle (when they, actually, had same beliefs and, as somebody can argue, same culture)?


Problem is I have no way to know beforehand which part of this complex meaning do you use. That's actually why I asks people to define terms I haven't sure how do they use, and was believed I'm trying to fraud (actually quite the opposite - I'm trying to argue what people mean, not I want them to mean). If you take another definition in the source you used, you actually will be wrong, and with words as "culture" or "spiritualism" or "materialism" or "consciousness" it's quite often thing. Even on English. The only method is to ask questions and use examples.
Also that's it. I'm keeping in mind that words is very complex. But at least in Russian (and in English when I'm working) it's kind of custom when you use a complex word with different meanings and meets misunderstanding, you explain the word - if you want to be understood, sure.

So. Are we on same term, if I'd say that "spiritualistic culture is a culture based on tenets that that perception begets reality and there is some basic meaning beyond physical reality", and it's actually exhaustive definition, at least for game context?


Yes - and you can't scientifically research the Truth beyond Maya. Also you can't achieve Brahman until you actually get that world around you don't exists, that every material thing puts you in chains. Actually it's good point to explain why you don't need to know _truth_ to achieve psi - because magical (psionic, tapas-based) powers is part of maya. Hindu mystic will tell that Force actually is Maya - and sith, who trying to achieve freedom through passions, doing it wrong and only will stain his karma.
But I disagree in another way. I believe the sourse of the thinking of spiritualism -> psi in this game is false equaling "modern science is materialism, classical religion and quasireligion beliefs are spiritualism". That's not how commonly psi working in sci-fi, and that's not how actually materialism or scientism or rationalism works. And actually I believes it's not how spiritualism works.
Especially because I don't like one or another ethos system proclaimed as "true" and "correct".

Alright, this really will be my last reply to you. I don't mean to be offensive, but it really is difficult to understand you and the argument keeps going around and around.

Here is what I think:
In game, both Materialists and Spiritualists use the scientific method (it's been proven by screenshots). Materialists, like in real life, think everything can be explained by matter. Spiritualists, like in real life, think there is something beyond the physical world.

Materialism, in real life, is not comparable with Quantom Theory (as quantum theorists say that it is basically unexplainable by Materialist ideology). Materialists say everything will be explainable as matter once they are teched up enough, and so say quantum physics is not necessary.

Spiritualists are able to learn psionics and ascend (basically reach enlightenment). A key aspect to that is they stop letting the "material world" blind them.

Therefore, through the logic of the game, while materialists can indeed study psionics, they will never be able to utilize them because they are *unwilling* to change their viewpoint that matter is what holds them back.

The materialists who *do* change their viewpoints are no longer materialists, and are now spiritualists, and so can then research it. So the point of materialists being able to utilize it is moot because they are no longer materialists.

So yes, a Materialist can study it, but they can never unlock it, because they don't have the right lifestyle. They aren't trying to "shed" the material world, as in they refuse to think there is more to the world than matter.

 

[aono]

Alright, this really will be my last reply to you. I don't mean to be offensive, but it really is difficult to understand you and the argument keeps going around and around.

I'm strarting to believe you're just don't want to even try to understand.
Do I declare that spiritualists don't use "scientific method"? Nope. I'm declaring that one of beliefs of Hinduism (that you bringed here) is that Maya can't be pierced by "scientific method".

Materialism, in real life, is not comparable with Quantom Theory (as quantum theorists say that it is basically unexplainable by Materialist ideology). Materialists say everything will be explainable as matter once they are teched up enough, and so say quantum physics is not necessary.

So you're declaring not only modern psychology, but also modern physics is beyond materialistic sphere.
Well. I've showed your declaration "Materialism, in real life, is not comparable with Quantom Theory" to physists I know. Reaction, well, quite funny. It's "WHAT?!"

 

[Enish]

At the end of the day, all psionics in any setting ultimately comes down to something beyond physical possibility. What are the fundamental laws of physics that govern the effects of biotic powers in Mass Effect again? The closest you get is the handwavium "Element Zero" but this still doesn't address the fundamental hows and whys of telekinesis being even physically possible in the context of a universe that is otherwise exactly like our own.

So really, saying "Midichloriens did it" is nothing more than a variant of the 'turtles all the way down' dilemma. You might as well say "The force comes from god." for all the difference it makes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Thus are Psionics (at their core) an outright rejection of materialist thought. They transcend physical possibility and our understanding of the mechanics and mathmatics which govern our universe and have more in common with biblical miracles than they do a universal law.

I agree with your general assessment of psionics in science fiction being generally repurposed fantasy elements (rather than grounded in speculative scientific foundation), but our "reality" isn't without the means to back this up. Look no further than entanglement in particle physics, or field theory in general. "Spooky action at a distance" is very real, and even the most well known fields (magnetism, gravity) are more mathematically consistent models than perfectly understood elements of reality. .

Utter digression, I know, but this is a good read on the mysteries of magnetism (published by a decently regarded lay science periodical):

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics

 

[aono]

Look no further than entanglement in particle physics, or field theory in general. "Spooky action at a distance" is very real, and even the most well known fields (magnetism, gravity) are more mathematically consistent models than perfectly understood elements of reality. .

Question is, are entanglement and field theory "forbidden" for materialists? As you can see, @Arkangilos declaring it about quantum theory in general.

 

[Enish]

Question is, are entanglement and field theory "forbidden" for materialists? As you can see, @Arkangilos declaring it about quantum theory in general.

It's a silly debate you guys are engaged in (and I say that lovingly, being a participant in many similarly silly debates in my time). That said, I think the issue here is definitional: if you're a literalist, then quantum theory is incompatible with materialism because materialism, philosophically speaking, really does hinge on matter being in the equation, i.e. something with mass.

However, another view is less literal: materialism merely means everything in the set of things not in the set of metaphysics (or, in simple speak, fundamental forces of the universe -- whether they have mass or not -- wouldn't be antithetical to the term).

For what it is worth, I try not to be a literalist in life, so count me in the second camp.

 

[Lady Lacroix]

I agree with your general assessment of psionics in science fiction being generally repurposed fantasy elements (rather than grounded in speculative scientific foundation), but our "reality" isn't without the means to back this up. Look no further than entanglement in particle physics, or field theory in general. "Spooky action at a distance" is very real, and even the most well known fields (magnetism, gravity) are more mathematically consistent models than perfectly understood elements of reality. .

Utter digression, I know, but this is a good read on the mysteries of magnetism (published by a decently regarded lay science periodical):

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics

An interesting read to wake up to! Thanks for the link.

 

[aono]

if you're a literalist, then quantum theory is incompatible with materialism because materialism, philosophically speaking, really does hinge on matter being in the equation, i.e. something with mass.

Actually it could be right about abstracts as "heat" or "height", but not about quantum theory.
The very point of quantum theory is, well, about elementary particles and how do they interact. I can actually be more precise if it is needed, but I hope not. Elementary particles have masses.
So even if you stays literalist, you shouldn't declare "materialism is not comparable with Quantom Theory" - because QT doesn't say "there is something beyond the physical world".

 

[terrycloth]

If psionics works through souls, it's not "myths" and materialist who created soulless robot just created complicated mechanical toy. Hurray for him.
If psionics don't works through souls, it can be mythic, but:
1. It means materialists should be able to learn psi.
2. It means spiritualists are plain wrong, and it's as bad as materialists plain wrong.

The idea that the soul is important for life, sapience, or consciousness is the myth. Did you read what I wrote? Because it doesn't look like you read any more than the one sentence you quoted. Here, I'll copy paste the rest for you:

They know everything last little detail that goes into the construction of a synthetic person, so there's no room for the supernatural to be involved in personhood. If people do have 'souls' then they aren't responsible for sapience or consciousness, they're just some weird otherdimensional appendix that you can use to get psychic powers at the cost of going crazy.

 

[aono]

They know everything last little detail that goes into the construction of a synthetic person, so there's no room for the supernatural to be involved in personhood.

I'm sorry, but how is it any proof for spiritualist? Spiritualist will ask: "can his thought beget reality?"
If it can, robot have soul.
If it can't, robot haven't "real" thought.

 

[terrycloth]

I'm sorry, but how is it any proof for spiritualist? Spiritualist will ask: "can his thought beget reality?"
If it can, robot have soul.
If it can't, robot haven't "real" thought.

Well, first of all, this is all in response to 'why are syths the culmination of materialist beliefs'. So what matters is what it proves to materialists.

No one can prove anything to spiritualists because they're immune to logical thought. "Here, we showed that none of the properties that you attribute to your so-called 'soul' are actually caused by it, by making an artificial mechanism that exhibits them all." "Well, it's not *real* thought or consciousness, then, it's just a creepy fake. We're going to ignore all your evidence because it contradicts what we know to be true a priori."

 

[aono]

Well, first of all, this is all in response to 'why are syths the culmination of materialist beliefs'. So what matters is what it proves to materialists.

Ah, that's again "different commentators" problem. I'm sorry.
I'm not asking about "why are syths the culmination of materialist beliefs". Actually I'm not agree anyway - why whould materialists needs to "proof" something? I'm not even sure they will speak "hey, we created a robot with consciousness!" What's the practical difference? Radical materialist even can refuse to speak about consciousness at all. Robots who can learn and use abstracts are useful, that's all that matters - and how "real" their consciousness is... well, that's just stupid talks.
I just can't get why every spiritualist automatically abhor sapient machines (not "some spiritualist who happens to have faith about 'life is sacred' or 'don't play God'", but every single one). The thing every spiritualist should, I believe, actually abhored could be uploads - and even then REAL spiritualist can find a loophole. After all, what is the difference of material form, when it's consciousness that matters?

"Well, it's not *real* thought or consciousness, then, it's just a creepy fake. We're going to ignore all your evidence because it contradicts what we know to be true a priori."

And that's why I bring psi. Psi-as-it-defended-here (I mean as "only spiritualists can psi because they do believe in souls") is actually a proof for one of ethos is right/wrong - if you can actually replicate a member of psionic specie FULLY but he can't do psi, it's not a full replica. You forgot something. That's a "reallity check", possibility to set actual experiment.

 

[Occursus Morini]

Ah, that's again "different commentators" problem. I'm sorry.
I'm not asking about "why are syths the culmination of materialist beliefs". Actually I'm not agree anyway - why whould materialists needs to "proof" something? I'm not even sure they will speak "hey, we created a robot with consciousness!" What's the practical difference? Radical materialist even can refuse to speak about consciousness at all. Robots who can learn and use abstracts are useful, that's all that matters - and how "real" their consciousness is... well, that's just stupid talks.
I just can't get why every spiritualist automatically abhor sapient machines (not "some spiritualist who happens to have faith about 'life is sacred' or 'don't play God'", but every single one). The thing every spiritualist should, I believe, actually abhored could be uploads - and even then REAL spiritualist can find a loophole. After all, what is the difference of material form, when it's consciousness that matters?


And that's why I bring psi. Psi-as-it-defended-here (I mean as "only spiritualists can psi because they do believe in souls") is actually a proof for one of ethos is right/wrong - if you can actually replicate a member of psionic specie FULLY but he can't do psi, it's not a full replica. You forgot something. That's a "reallity check", possibility to set actual experiment

I would make it simple for you. As some have already stipulated in this topic : In the real world, it is abhorrent to pretend that all Spiritualists – in-game terminology – would despise Robots and their upgraded counterparts. Similarly, it is abhorrent to pretend that all Materialists – in-game terminology - in the real world would despise or not want to research on their own terms Psionic abilities and technologies. Though all of this is notwithstanding for a simple reason : By admission by the developers, the way it is now is for diversification purposes, meaning it is based upon gaming considerations. It is not meant to be realistic or a social commentary of any kind of the truth behind any or all claims of any side whatsoever on the debate between Spiritualists and Materialists, whatever those terms might mean for you or anyone.

If, though, you want to talk about those topics, feel free to do so, but keep in mind it does not matter for the game at large if in the real world it makes sense, but rather if in the gaming world of Stellaris it is meeting its goals of diversifying the Ethos, making them standout more by the fact of restricting mechanics behind those said Ethos.

Thus, if you want solely the game to allow more freedom regarding those things, then you would be better off criticizing the conception behind which Paradox Interactive seems to operate in this current case, that is that restricting mechanics to some Ethos will in some way achieve greater characterization of those worldviews and help diversify the way the game is played. It is a discussion about game design, not so much of philosophy in general. Hence, if you really want to argue with the developers on that front, you must show from a design perspective that in the current case of Stellaris, it is not so much a good idea to limit some kind of mechanics behind Ethos because it would not achieve its goals in the first place of A) characterize the Ethos more B) Diversify the way we play multiple Ethos.

It would be an interesting conversation, but what you are doing is rather meaningless in its current form.

 

[aono]

Though all of this is notwithstanding for a simple reason : By admission by the developers, the way it is now is for diversification purposes, meaning it is based upon gaming considerations. It is not meant to be realistic or a social commentary of any kind of the truth behind any or all claims of any side whatsoever on the debate between Spiritualists and Materialists, whatever those terms might mean for you or anyone.

I'm actually fully up for this. It wasn't me who started to declare it IS some logical and fluff reason behind such separation. I, personally, don't believe so and that's what I'm trying to prove when this question raise up.

I'm saying:
1. There is no any actual phisophical reason to lock at least first ascension perk to any ethos. As I see, you are agree with me, a lot of people here is not.
2. There is no any actual sci-fi-based reason (as Stellaris is kind of trope-based) to lock at least first ascension perk to any ethos. As well, there are people here who actually believe it's a sci-fi trope.
3. There is no any actual gameplay reason to lock at least first ascension perk to any ethos, because you can change your empire ethos through play.
So there no ANY reason to have first ascension perk to any ethos, as psi to spiritualist.

There are three different points, so when somebody came and say "no, there us ACTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL REASON behind psi being locked for materialist, because materialism is a, b, c, and spiritualism is a, b, c.", if I want to say "I believe I'm right", I need to prove my points.
As you can see, for now nobody here actually arguing me from gameplay position. I'm glad to, but critics of my idea actually trying to prove it's phylosophical clause.

So, please, can we just admit that first two points is right and actually came to third?