|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 27, 2023 10:54:48 GMT
What are kittens doing when they play-fight and 'hunt' their siblings? It is believed that they are learning the skills necessary to hunt and kill in adulthood. Play is a learning tool. It is thought that play is a learning tool for all species who engage in it. Roleplay is, perhaps, the most common form of play engaged in by human children (roleplaying cops and robbers, etc.). Why is that? What skill is the child learning for adulthood when he engages in roleplay? Carl Jung had a theory. He believed that we are all unique individuals, with our own unique ideas. However, society can't accommodate all these different ideas. In order for society to work, we must conform to a standard, we must all read from the same page. A degree of uniqueness is fine, but limits must be placed upon it. Where our beliefs go beyond what is acceptable, we must wear a mask to hide those beliefs. We may believe something, but we must not say it if it is too far outside the box of what is acceptable; instead, we must play the role of someone who believes what everyone else appears to believe, or risk condemnation from the group. Roleplay is the human child's preparation for a life of pretending to be something he is not, pretending to believe things he does not, in the same way that play-fighting is a kitten's way of preparing for a lifetime of acquiring food for itself.
Do you agree or disagree?Disagree. Role-play for children is much more than a sceptical exercise in preparedness for conforming to norms later on in life. I don't think there is any link between role-playing and holding values later on in in life that can themselves change as one grows. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 27, 2023 11:03:43 GMT
What are kittens doing when they play-fight and 'hunt' their siblings? It is believed that they are learning the skills necessary to hunt and kill in adulthood. Play is a learning tool. It is thought that play is a learning tool for all species who engage in it. Roleplay is, perhaps, the most common form of play engaged in by human children (roleplaying cops and robbers, etc.). Why is that? What skill is the child learning for adulthood when he engages in roleplay? Carl Jung had a theory. He believed that we are all unique individuals, with our own unique ideas. However, society can't accommodate all these different ideas. In order for society to work, we must conform to a standard, we must all read from the same page. A degree of uniqueness is fine, but limits must be placed upon it. Where our beliefs go beyond what is acceptable, we must wear a mask to hide those beliefs. We may believe something, but we must not say it if it is too far outside the box of what is acceptable; instead, we must play the role of someone who believes what everyone else appears to believe, or risk condemnation from the group. Roleplay is the human child's preparation for a life of pretending to be something he is not, pretending to believe things he does not, in the same way that play-fighting is a kitten's way of preparing for a lifetime of acquiring food for itself.
Do you agree or disagree?Disagree. Role-play for children is much more than a sceptical exercise in preparedness for conforming to norms later on in life. I don't think there is any link between role-playing and holding values later on in in life that can themselves change as one grows. You could be right. Jung said we step into social roles. A woman who has not led a particularly virtuous life, or has led a life that was obviously less than virtuous, will become 'a vicar's wife' on marrying a vicar. She will step into the role and assume all the characteristics expected of a vicar's wife. I don't imagine he meant it will always happen, only that it is a general rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 27, 2023 11:09:39 GMT
I think roleplay is inner life practice. Each time a child assumes a role, they have a draw a line between their inner thoughts and the outside projection of themselves. They are flexing a muscle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 27, 2023 11:16:40 GMT
I think roleplay is inner life practice. Each time a child assumes a role, they have a draw a line between their inner thoughts and the outside projection of themselves. They are flexing a muscle. I don't know if Jung is correct, but acting as devil's advocate, I would ask: why is it important for a child to be able to distinguish his inner thoughts from his outward projection? Why does he need to separate them? To better communicate his feelings? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 27, 2023 11:20:15 GMT
Disagree. Role-play for children is much more than a sceptical exercise in preparedness for conforming to norms later on in life. I don't think there is any link between role-playing and holding values later on in in life that can themselves change as one grows. You could be right. Jung said we step into social roles. A woman who has not led a particularly virtuous life, or has led a life that was obviously less than virtuous, will become 'a vicar's wife' on marrying a vicar. She will step into the role and assume all the characteristics expected of a vicar's wife. I don't imagine he meant it will always happen, only that it is a general rule. This is possibly true, many people conform to the social roles they end up in and many don't. I'd say that's human adaptation to a given environment, and a determination and desire to embrace and stay connected to that environment - but not something that is rooted in role-play as a child. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 27, 2023 11:42:25 GMT
I think roleplay is inner life practice. Each time a child assumes a role, they have a draw a line between their inner thoughts and the outside projection of themselves. They are flexing a muscle. I don't know if Jung is correct, but acting as devil's advocate, I would ask: why is it important for a child to be able to distinguish his inner thoughts from his outward projection? Why does he need to separate them? To better communicate his feelings? I think you are deep into devil's advocate territory here  My view is civilisation would be impossible without this distinction / line being clear for most people |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 27, 2023 13:21:52 GMT
My view is civilisation would be impossible without this distinction / line being clear for most people Yes, but I think Jung would agree with that statement. Jung's position is that we all adopt roles. There is the vicar's wife, the soldier, the butler (to use Jung's examples), all of which come with a bundle of expectations. Jung claims that mental health issues arise when we 'over-identify' with these roles, forgetting that they are not really who we are. Note the use of the word over-identify. Jung sees no problem with with people identifying with these roles (in fact, he probably believed society required people to adopt these roles to function properly); problems arise, he said, when people forget they are only playing a role. If they remain conscience that they are playing a role, they can consciously deal with the conflicts between who they really are and what the role demands they project to the world. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 28, 2023 22:44:27 GMT
Yes I understand what you mean there, and there was a time when people thought this is how you do intelligence. The called them expert systems, and tried to use them for diagnosing diseases by answering yes no questions in a decision tree. It was hopelessly inadequate. With genetic algorithms you don't need to teach it. This example, when playing chess, it made moves no one had ever contemplated, so they had to re-write the chess manuals and add in the AI games. AI even found a more efficient way in maths of multiplying large matrices. It could have got itself published in a maths journal. So, why do these machines need to emulate human beings? What's achieved by making them human-like (if that were possible).? Made by humans and AI will learn from that and if I’m reading Magrathea correctly (and I would agree) we really are entering dangerous waters,not for the machines obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 29, 2023 0:16:30 GMT
So, why do these machines need to emulate human beings? What's achieved by making them human-like (if that were possible).? Made by humans and AI will learn from that and if I’m reading Magrathea correctly (and I would agree) we really are entering dangerous waters,not for the machines obviously. But, as I said, machines can't want. Intelligence is just a tool for achieving what we want. What we want is dictated by instincts. Machines can have super intelligence, but they won't put that intelligence to any use on their own initiative because they have don't have instincts that make them want things. They won't seek to gain dominance over human beings because it's not possible for them to want that. y As I pointed out already, and more germane to the OP, a simple phone app that works as a reliable lie detector is a greater threat to society. Can a society function without the conceits, half-truths, and outright lies that hold it together? Could any relationship withstand relentless truth? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 29, 2023 7:15:36 GMT
You can ask the Ai to make predictive personality models of your friends, colleagues and family - ask it to give you the best strategies to employ to manipulate people and what lies to tell and what lies not to. It's going to be so much fun.Can't ordinary human beings do this already? People manipulate and lie all the time. Not typically with much proficiency. I think access to the abilities of Ai will be like everyone having their own genius level psychopath |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 29, 2023 7:21:18 GMT
Made by humans and AI will learn from that and if I’m reading Magrathea correctly (and I would agree) we really are entering dangerous waters,not for the machines obviously. But, as I said, machines can't want. Intelligence is just a tool for achieving what we want. What we want is dictated by instincts. Machines can have super intelligence, but they won't put that intelligence to any use on their own initiative because they have don't have instincts that make them want things. They won't seek to gain dominance over human beings because it's not possible for them to want that. y As I pointed out already, and more germane to the OP, a simple phone app that works as a reliable lie detector is a greater threat to society. Can a society function without the conceits, half-truths, and outright lies that hold it together? Could any relationship withstand relentless truth? Machines can't want, but they can imitate. The danger of machines wanting to take over and doing so is an inadvertent (honest) strawman. Machines (AI) may well take over without wanting anything - the humans will do all the wanting. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 29, 2023 7:32:55 GMT
This might seem weird, but I feel the issue of AI and the main topic of this thread are quite closely related
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 29, 2023 7:56:38 GMT
This might seem weird, but I feel the issue of AI and the main topic of this thread are quite closely related I don’t see why it’s weird,I think it’s established that there’s a cadre of people who have shaped various societies through the ages whilst the plebs followed,quite often by coercion both physical and mental. I think a small group with the assistance of AI is quite frightening for the future,it’s already happening imo and that makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist which I’ve always done my best to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 29, 2023 8:44:02 GMT
This might seem weird, but I feel the issue of AI and the main topic of this thread are quite closely related I don’t see why it’s weird,I think it’s established that there’s a cadre of people who have shaped various societies through the ages whilst the plebs followed,quite often by coercion both physical and mental. I think a small group with the assistance of AI is quite frightening for the future,it’s already happening imo and that makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist which I’ve always done my best to avoid. I agree. Even if we look at where coercion and control reach a pinnacle of competence (say the East German Stasi), the abilities of these groups was, by modern standards, pretty pathetic. The Stasi had files on everyone, but needed to employ a large fraction of the population to manage the monolith - ie it was very inefficient. If the Stasi had a population addicted to social media, they would have been able to enforce their totalitarian rule on a relative pittance - now add AI to that scenario However, that isn't what i was thinking. Here's the thoughts that prompted my comment - Darling is talking about 'roles' and the adoption of such. and something is niggling me about the whole issue. What would a human being be if it didn't emotionally accept for itself any role? A Psychopath? Something close to that?Then it occurred to me that the difference between a competent AI (of the type currently making news) and a normal human, is the the AI accepts no role. The rumination is why i haven't answered Darling's last reply to my post. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 29, 2023 9:42:50 GMT
But, as I said, machines can't want. Intelligence is just a tool for achieving what we want. What we want is dictated by instincts. Machines can have super intelligence, but they won't put that intelligence to any use on their own initiative because they have don't have instincts that make them want things. They won't seek to gain dominance over human beings because it's not possible for them to want that. y As I pointed out already, and more germane to the OP, a simple phone app that works as a reliable lie detector is a greater threat to society. Can a society function without the conceits, half-truths, and outright lies that hold it together? Could any relationship withstand relentless truth? Machines can't want, but they can imitate. The danger of machines wanting to take over and doing so is an inadvertent (honest) strawman. Machines (AI) may well take over without wanting anything - the humans will do all the wanting. Yes, but the machines don't 'take over' in this case - they are merely the agents of human beings. They don't have their own 'will'. They are merely the tools to enact the will of human beings. |
|
