• Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    There could be no possible function for an actual paradise. Why could consciousness possibly exist if all it could to do was pleasure itself 24/7? There would be no change, and without change, no imaginable purpose. Just a masturbatory eternity, where everything felt the same–good.

    I’d prefer nonexistence.

        • i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca
          21·
          1 year ago

          I first read it as the left side being the industrialized world, and the right side being from developing countries. I saw it as a subtle awareness about how we rich fucks try to exclude immigration from “shithole countries” because then we wouldn’t have as many toys.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            1 year ago

            That’s probably much closer to the designers intentions than my interpretation.

            I was seeing some heaven/hell thing, and attacking the concept that the left slide even exists.

    • Perditija@feddit.de
      6·
      1 year ago

      Is this paradise meant to be perfect? It won’t be boring or meaningless, because that would mean that it’s not perfect.

      Also, change can be pleasurable and as such not automatically contradicts paradise imho.

      • scubbo@lemmy.ml
        2·
        1 year ago

        I got into a discussion about this on the TheGoodPlace subreddit before I left. You’ve hit the nail on the head there - it’s not possible for you to get bored, listless, frustrated, unfulfilled, etc. in a perfect paradise, because then it wouldn’t be perfect. If you’re imagining those effects, then the paradise you’re imagining isn’t a perfect one, and so is irrelevant to discussions about a perfect one.

        A slightly more interesting discussion is “I, as I am now, dislike the thought of becoming a pleasure-zombie in the future. It makes me uncomfortable now to consider being motivationless and content in the future” - which, sure, fine, ok. Sounds like internalized protestant work ethic to me (“I don’t deserve to be happy unless I’m working hard, and I only know that I’m working hard if I’m miserable”), but at least it’s not logically irrelevant like the first argument.

        The most interesting version is “I don’t see a continuous line of consciousness between me and the hypothetical-future-me who lives in bliss, so there’s no reason for me to be concerned with their fate - they’re not really me” - which is pretty subjective depending on your views of continuity of identity.

    • Batmancer@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 year ago

      I just watched season 2 episode 2 of Star Trek TNG and this seems relevant and also I want to tell people about it cause of how cool I thought it was.

      DATA: I have a question, sir. PICARD: Yes, Data. What is it? DATA: What is death? PICARD: Oh, is that all? Well, Data, you’re asking probably the most difticult of all questions. Some see it as a changing into an indestructible form, forever unchanging. They believe that the purpose of the entire universe is to then maintain that form in an Earth-like garden which will give delight and pleasure through all eternity. On the other hand, there are those who hold to the idea of our blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences, hopes and dreams merely a delusion. DATA: Which do you believe, sir? PICARD: Considering the marvellous complexity of our universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that, matter energy, gravitation, time, dimension, I believe that our existence must be more than either of these philosophies. That what we are goes beyond Euclidian and other practical measuring systems and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality.