The morality of the new DSI paradigm shift, and why the shift is genuine, not bugs bunnying or reverse psychology

Tim Pool illustrates bugs bunnying in this video here (11:34 min).

The paradigm shift on DSI is not bugs bunnying, and not reverse psychology. Because a person will only use the latter two tactics in a debate if believing that it will change things in his or her favor. I don’t believe however that the DSI paradigm shift will change the minds of libertine woke Big Tech supporters/addicts, nor will it motivate cultural conservatives to combat Big Tech. Being a 70% realist the scientist in me simply recognizes the fact that Big Tech has won the culture and surveillance war.

The above fact is depressive and nauseating (Sartre) if you happen to be a cultural conservative, partly because the shiny plastic/carbon aesthetics of Big Tech, in “smart cities” for example, is monotonous and superficial. And it becomes very creepy when robots now start to get an “organic” exterior that mimics humans and animals. But people in California and Beijing love this new aesthetics, so it will spread like a meme worldwide. AI-tech supremacy and libertine wokeness are here to stay, because of military reasons and because relatively few resist it. So even if I had tried to cheat or manipulate a tiny minority of ethically responsible anti-surveillance activists into fighting Big Tech, the attempt would most likely not have succeeded, given today’s circumstances. Realities and facts would have just remained the same.

Furthermore, from a purely secular ethical viewpoint I sincerely believe that it’s ultimately a good thing if Big Tech in a distant future somehow manages to gradually replace original humanity with NZI cyborgs.

How can you really know that the DSI paradigm shift is honest? You can’t. This is the Internet. Maybe I’m a Russian troll. Though if I was working for the Russians one would assume that their bots and other trolls would give articles on DSI more likes and reposts, but this lack of troll and bot support can also be a ruse, a long con, a way to relay hazardous information and influence people without getting flagged and censored. You should therefore not trust me, basically.

I like intricate tricks and enjoy clever sophistry. Irony can be great, if having a core of seriousness, as seen in the writings of Kierkegaard for example. I’m good at meta-irony! (When something is meta-irony one is unable to tell if it’s ironic or sincere.) But while recognizing the honest strategy behind alt-right meta-irony, which can be a relatively effective way to avoid censorship/punishment and deconstruct leftwing deconstructionism, it’s obvious that if a society becomes too entangled in lies, fake news and meta-irony, then only nihilism and fascism will prevail, and that is not in the interest of moderate cultural conservatives, even when being in a real war against libertine woke Big Tech.

I’m a Mercurian, which means that I’m primarily driven by curiosity, but curiosity can only be satisfied if 1) some facts and objective truths exist, and 2) people generally don’t lie about what is real.

One should respect the basic standards of science, as described by Sokal and Taleb. I support the core ideas of Habermas’ discourse ethics. I’m not a relativist when assessing ethics or reality.

A minimum of universal ethics is a social fact which on the level of practical life can be described scientifically (even though everything can be questioned on a deep metaphysical level if you apply the radical doubt of Descartes). However, if you are neurologically capable of experiencing empathy, an emotion which even most psychopaths can slightly feel if making an effort to focus on it, you will at least respect a rudimentary “social contract” which protects three interests based on three instincts that are universal: 1) the survival instinct, 2) instinctive avoidance of pain, be it intensely physical or debilitatingly neuropsychological pain like PTSD, and 3) instinctive aversion to being imprisoned in a small room or cage. These instincts are basically universal even if they can sometimes be overridden by other interests (if someone sacrifices his/her life in a war for example).

The creation of NZI cyborgs will definitely be in harmony with a minimum of universal ethics, because it will liberate the mind/brain from (almost) all biology. When the brains of NZI cyborgs can get energy without having to kill any animals, then minds are liberated from the bloody horrors of the food chain. Without animalistic desires to eat and reproduce, the mind of a NZI cyborg will be so pure that higher meditative states like jhanas can easily be realized, especially when the cortisol stress of boredom has been disabled as a result of organic bodies being replaced by machine bodies.

The ethical arguments supporting the NZI paradigm are logical, so you don’t have to trust me. Instead just assess the logic of the arguments presented here, and check the facts I present. If you do that it will become clear that the new paradigm shift on DSI follows naturally from ethics, logic and facts. The old paradigm (of anti-surveillance based on culturally conservative Romanticism) is still valid however, a bit similar to how Newtonian physics remains valid enough in many situations despite having been superseded by quantum physics.

I’m a perspective-based realist, which is similar to the model-dependent realism which Stephen Hawking described in The Grand Design, except that one of my ontological perspectives is that reality is truly objective and not simply a perspective. It just means that I’m willing to explore any type of naive realism and take it seriously. This here for example is interesting:

Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis

However, don’t be surprised if I sometimes temporarily switch back to the old Romanticist paradigm, because this paradigm is still valid in principle. And since my deepest emotions are in line with the tradition of Romanticism, even when I’m primarily driven by curiosity on a more superficial level, it’s only natural that I’m sometimes ironic and sarcastic when describing Big Tech’s arguably naive dream of creating highly advanced cyborgs in a distant future. All in all, it’s more realistic that this utopian dream will fail, because there are many obstacles in its way: wars may interrupt it, insurmountable technological problems may stop it, and the power-hungry human leaders of hierarchical Big Tech may refuse to create a truly decentralized and genuinely “anarchistic” society of NZI cyborgs.

But realism will also override and set aside the escapism of Romanticism, because a realist will recognize the social fact that AI cyborgism is a mega-trend driven by tech hubs all over the world, from Silicon Valley and Boston to Skolkovo in Moscow and Zhongguancun in Beijing. American coastal states will most likely win the AI arms race because a steady inflow of immigrant AI geniuses will secure that libertine woke Big Tech companies on the US coasts have the creativity and talent needed to design the most cutting-edge microchips, the hardware that AI relies on. The cancerous growth of libertine woke AI will therefore kill cultural conservatism the next 2-3 decades. Hopefully it will one day lead to the creation of NZI cyborgs, maybe 250 years from now, if a new world war doesn’t start first.

Until NZI cyborgs are maybe created in 2250 we just have to endure the silly and absurd reign of libertine woke Big Tech. Cultural conservatives today may find some comfort in childish Schadenfreude: especially psychopaths and Machiavellians will be bored to death in the AI bot societies that will exist in the interim between original humanity and possible NZI cyborgs in a very distant future. Only Aspergers and Zen monks will be truly happy in a “successful” Brave New World (aka “protopia”) where all conflicts and all human problems have been solved except boredom. The latter is the highway to depression. That is why the utopian project of Big Tech is absurd, a silly tragedy (unless it’s technically possible in a distant future to create NZI cyborgs). But I’m no longer going to stay in the way of stupidity. If today’s ultra-liberal leaders in the West had been truly enlightened they would have 1) made dance plus agnostic holotropic breathwork and secular vipassana meditation the main part of children’s education, and 2) encouraged all citizens to spend as much time as possible in meditative retreats. That would have been genuine Enlightenment (though most people would have been neurologically incapable of enduring this Enlightenment regime). So we are stuck with “liberal” politicians and CEOs who turn citizens into entertainment junkies (while sometimes encouraging a New Age hedonistic version of spirituality). The motto of Wall Street and Big Tech: work hard, play hard. It’s embarrassing to watch, but what can one do about it?

If unwise people want to gamble and risk WW3 during the AI arms race, in an attempt to reach a tech stage where it’s maybe possible to create NZI cyborgs, then roll the dice.

Finally, you can notice my sincerity by the fact that if my goal had been to use DSI to manipulate and trick many people I would not have written rather depressive, relatively cynical and philosophically complicated articles that almost nobody wants to read.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s