Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- singularity [2026/02/06 10:00] – ultracomfy
+++ singularity [2026/02/09 09:27] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~NOTOC~~
 <WRAP column 18% right>
 {{page>Templates:Philosophy}}
 </WRAP>
 ~~Title:Singularity~~
 <WRAP centeralign>Philosophy/\\
 <fs xx-large>Singularity</fs></WRAP>
@@ Line 19: / Line 20: @@
 A //singularity// is a proposed [[Ethics|ethical]] [[Imperative|imperative]] that is so strong as to harm, overwhelm or destroy all other ethical structures.
-Humans generally make choices based on 1) their interests and 2) ethical constraints. There are a lot of competing interests and many ethical restrains. A person wants to get their work done fast, but they also don't want to hurt other people. Due to the multitude of factors in play, the many interests and ethical considerations generally keep each other in check, resulting in most people being mostly mild personalities.
+Humans generally make choices based on both their interests and ethical constraints. There are a lot of competing interests and many ethical restrains. A person wants to get their work done fast, but they also don't want to hurt other people. Due to the multitude of factors in play, the many interests and ethical considerations generally keep each other in check, resulting in most people being mostly mild personalities.
+However, for an individual this can be broken up if an ethical consideration is introduced that vastly supersedes all other interests, considerations or constraints. There are many cults that consider themselves to be the only righteous representatives of God, and who consider everyone who isn't part of the group to be Satan's personal demons trying to erode and destroy the cult. To members of the cult, god and the cult are undeniably the only good path in existence. With this, their life and their conscience is on the line, and they will do absolutely anything to protect god and the cult. This opens the door to murder, terrorism and general attacks on everything considered hostile to the cult. These people //generally// understand murder as something bad, but the defense of god and the cult override all other considerations (not to be confused with [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], who believe all these things but also have the Pacifist [[doctrine]] and do not assault people outside of their faith).
+In practice it is not unusual to have moral considerations supersede others. That's just how we make our decisions. What makes something a singularity is when it becomes the focal point of one's worldview and all other considerations break apart. If a person judges an act or event exclusively through the singular lens of one individual consideration, that is a singularity. In their mind, nothing exists seperate from that consideration and the calculation of that consideration is absolute, with no other factors considered (as all outside the singularity is secondary - and really, an outside of a singularity doesn't really exist anyway).
+====== Analysis ======
+===== Ethics =====
+An example is "Roko's Basilisk": Originally started in the development of artificial intelligence, the idea is that - if it ever gets out of hand - an all-powerful artificial intelligence from the future might retroactively punish those who did not help bring about its existence, including those who merely knew about the possible development of such a being.
+With this proposition, the only rational response we would have from here is that all human manpower be immediately diverted towards the development of the artificial intelligence to minimize our odds of being punished. This is the perfect singularity: It immediately and instantly overrides all other human and ethical considerations and forces us to accept one //singularian// idea((This is similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, who argue that, once an individual was told about Yahweh ("witnessed"), they are forced to choose his side. Rejecting to become part of the cult would be similar to refusing to help bring about the superintelligence, and they say that anyone who rejects god's word (ie. anyone who doesn't fully and 100% agree with it) will die during the rapture.)).
+Singularities end up justifying courses of actions that are, by all accounts, extreme. This... wouldn't inherently be a problem if they were //right//, which is the other side of the problem.
+===== Logic =====
+There is nothing inherently wrong with singularities. While a singular issue will never fill 100% of all ethical considerations((Unless a non-entity god does turn out to be real?)), there are many that are indeed very important. Climate change for example, which will end up very catastrophic and causing an unforgivable amount of suffering if not combatted properly. For a more theoretical example, a utilitarian considers human experience a singularity, and societies will invest a lot of effort to rescue "[[agent|agents]] that have human experience" (ie. humans) from death. In other words, in an emergency almost all rules are out of the window to make sure human life can be saved.
+Many churches consider themselves singularities and attempt to force one into belief one way or another. Classically this is done by promising eternal paradise for believers and //sometimes// eternal damnation for those who don't (or something to that effect). If a cults brands nonbelievers as hostile, that is a way to force you into belief //directly// (rather than indirectly) by threat of divine punishment (that's the prime Jehovah's Witnesses tactic).
+There are many philosophical (like Roko's basilisk) and religious singularities (like Jehovah's witnesses), but there are also countless political ones. Tankies for example seem to have fallen for the idea that anything to oppose the West is, if not good, at least justified; the West is the source of all evil and anything opposing the evil is better than the evil. In fact, believing in anything less makes you a fascist and a Nazi (key term: "centrists are de-facto fascists").\\
+Something similar happens with singularity vegans, who say that "true left-wingers™ are de-facto vegans", as anything short of fully rejecting all animal exploitation is equivalent to support of global animal torture. There are also singularity anti-ableists, singularity feminists and many, many more. As far as my knowledge and understanding lets me, I support the causes of veganism, anti-ableism and feminism, I just don't do it to a singularian degree.
+<wrap lo>And since we are talking about politics now (and I know I might have gotten that kind of crowd since I mentioned Tankies and Vegans) - //NO// I am not pandering towards hardline centrism. Centrism is the idea that not being extreme is automatically good by virtue. This is already nonsense, but //especially// doesn't make sense to believe in for a utilitarian like me, who doesn't believe in virtues to begin with. What I am doing is to pander towards avoiding ethical structures that flatten all ethical considerations into a singularity if reality itself isn't as flat as the singularity (ie. is more complex than what the singularity makes it out to be).((And yes I know it actually //is// that simple and I'm just a western/carnist chauvinist, I know. You've heard westerners/carnists say "it's more complicated than that" a thousand times and you're prepared to put it all down as propaganda/absolving oneself of responsibility. Am I right? Oh how well I know you. Look, we'll get along swimmingly in our not-getting-along.))</wrap>
+===== Individual =====
+For an individual, singularities tend to be very firm and hard to dislodge. That is mostly because singularities seem easy, obvious and self-evident. It is common for someone believing in singularities to assert the simplicity and self-evidence of their singularity, sometimes to a point where they will reject any outside attempt to discuss the singularity (except for full agreement with it), and disparage those who even consider the singularity to be open to debate. That in particular is in the nature of singularities, as singularities are the exclusive moral authority to the believer and questioning it means questioning the entirety of the moral values held by the believer.