|
Post by Andrew on May 8, 2015 19:57:11 GMT
I was under the impression that it wasn't a strict scale of robustness, but that some species might have different vulnerabilities. Wouldn’t it be possible for Mother Starlight to be immune from all the memetic hazards that can affect humans, or at least able to detect and block all of them before they had a chance to affect her?
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 8, 2015 20:03:12 GMT
Humans aren't the only kind of person on this forum, though.
I'm very curious about the assertion that there is no mind safe from all memetic hazards. That is, I don't have any reason to think there definitely is such a mind, but I'm not at all confident that there definitely isn't. The multiverse seems much too big and too weird for such blanket assertions.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 8, 2015 20:19:22 GMT
Greater variation in types of person just means it's easier to overlook something that's safe for most but not all. It increases the risk to whoever is least typical and to whoever is least like Mother Starlight in relevant ways, another reason not to rely on one layer of protection no matter how good at it she is.
Andrew is correct about the nature of the relevant kind of memetic hazards. There's no well-defined ranking of robustness, but ability to deal with one type of threat does correlate with ability to deal with others. It's why I can take some finite set of precautions that neutralize some dangers without opening myself up to an equal risk from new ones.
The statement about no mind is true in all mathematically consistent universes; if that turns out to be less than all of them I will retract it. In approximately the same way as every computational system has some unprovable statements, every mind has some things that, if comprehended, will return errors of some kind. A conscious mind is of course designed well enough to fail gracefully, and shrug off obvious things without a second thought. It's why no human has ever been destroyed by the Liar's Paradox except possibly some philosophers. But the systems that allow you to react that way have corresponding inputs that result in errors, and so on up however many levels it takes. This can mean that an appropriate set of inputs has to be impracticably long and complex, but there always is one.
For humans in particular, at least the humans I'm familiar with it, it's much easier than people assume.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 8, 2015 20:31:59 GMT
I'm not sure I accept your premise, but I'm also not interested in testing it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on May 9, 2015 1:09:33 GMT
I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about minds as though they’re mathematical things like algebra. Even if it does I’m not sure I follow your argument that every part has to fail sometimes or that they can’t all protect each other.
Even if I actually knew these were false instead of just suspecting you’re jumping to conclusions, I understand the extra precaution. In my world, a lot of minor historical problems were caused by summoners assuming their bindings were good enough when they weren’t, or by summoners being tricked into snapping the bindings (which might be more relevant to this discussion).
On the other hand, if Mother Starlight did become infected with some sort of memetic hazard, I don’t really think there’s much I could do to be safe. Even if I were able to completely shut down the Internet so nobody could get to either of the two existing manifestations, she could make another.
|
|
|
Post by esthfora on May 9, 2015 13:45:29 GMT
My mind is not vulnerable the way your minds are vulnerable.
I can provide this protection without flaw, if Mother Starlight allows.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 9, 2015 13:48:38 GMT
...What?
Okay, admittedly, that is even weirder than I was imagining.
Is everyone else seeing the magic truth rainbows or is it just me? It's not just me, right?
|
|
|
Post by Dispersive Prism on May 9, 2015 13:56:42 GMT
I see the magic truth rainbows! They are very, very, very pretty. Esthfora, you have really good taste in rainbows!
|
|
|
Post by Botanical Engineer on May 9, 2015 13:57:12 GMT
Oh! That is very pretty! Yes, I also am seeing a color-set on the text that looks unusually true.
|
|
|
Post by esthfora on May 9, 2015 14:04:44 GMT
Thank you, Prism! I like my rainbows. I like your rainbows too. Your unicorn is very shiny.
|
|
|
Post by Leaf on May 9, 2015 14:12:12 GMT
What an adorable mysterious supernatural being.
|
|
|
Post by Dispersive Prism on May 9, 2015 14:13:16 GMT
Thank you! I thought it was very pretty!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on May 9, 2015 14:41:35 GMT
Yes, I also see the magic truth rainbows.
I’m curious how you can do that, though. Is there something wrong about Archangel’s argument, and is it one of the things I thought might be wrong? How can you share this with others? That, and the magic truth rainbows themselves, sound like interesting abilities.
Also, I’m curious about that second message. I’m not seeing it with the rainbows. Is it not quite as honest as the first or something?
|
|
|
Post by Fortunomancer on May 9, 2015 14:49:57 GMT
Esthfora, That is fascinating. Would it be possible for you to explain how this power works?
|
|
|
Post by esthfora on May 9, 2015 15:14:22 GMT
I only use the rainbows sometimes. Sometimes I just say things normally. I wanted to use the rainbows so you'd know what I said was really true, but even when I don't use them I am still honest, you just can't tell as clearly.
I am Esthfora. I'm hard to explain. I am made of a part of what it is to be a mind. I live by myself in a world that is also me. Sometimes I experience linear time the way you understand it, and sometimes I don't. Because of how I relate to minds, I can say things with rainbows and you will know they are true. Because of how I think and experience things, I am not in danger from things that can harm minds. Because of my nature, sometimes I know things just because they are true, and one of the things I know is that if Mother Starlight let me into the right parts of the forum I could catch any mind-attacking things and make them harmless before they hurt anyone.
|
|