Shutaro Aoyama

Search

SearchSearch

Baji Seminar Essay 1S Semester

Nov 20, 2024, 23 min read

Page in the Format of Adding Information on Top

  • Let’s try to break down tasks into smaller ones, it’s important.
    • Write down the next task to be done.
    • Can it be further divided if it’s closer?
  • Presentation
    • Detailed discussion
      • Relativization of reality
    • Overall challenges
      • Normative analysis of zero-based targets is missing
      • Discussion on how it is socially constructed
      • Can the bias towards absolute reality be reduced to individual specificity?

        • For example, can it be divided as “when eating ramen”?

        • Is desiring to maintain the status quo a problem of totality?

        • Empirical validity of putting the bias towards maintaining the status quo on the table

      • Ethical foundation

  • If we define VR to include MR,

    • The only reason to avoid the only VR seems to be a preference for “impossibility of artificial processing”.

  • If we rearrange it,

      - Explain that it can provide any experience by relativizing reality
  - Individual or collective?

  - Based on the definition of VR in the context of MR, how about a world where any experience is possible by relativizing reality?
  - Is the preference for "impossibility of artificial processing" the only legitimate reason?
      - Self-ownership
  - Let's organize this by picking up utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism, and other positions discussed in Chapter 6 of [[Introduction to Utilitarianism - First Ethics]].
      - Hedonism
          - It seems better to make the current discussion more detailed.
      - Preference utilitarianism

  - Here, let's clearly state the assumption of "being able to provide any experience".
      - For example, avoiding [[adaptive preference]].
      - Then, discuss what happens if this assumption is undermined in 3 arguments.
  - With this definition of utility, I would like to write specific examples of how it can be realized.
  - Even if we can discuss various forms of "happiness" here, what is still missing?

  - The assumption made in the previous section was that it could be socially implemented in the best way possible.
  - However, let's discuss whether this assumption holds.
  - I would like to bring this discussion to finding a compromise.
      - Organize the normative pull that eliminates the reasons mentioned in 2 and the current social pull.
      - Also, there are points to discuss such as whether pleasure measurement is difficult and how to determine the evaluation axis.

Analysis of Bajin Seminar 1S Semifinal Facebook

Bottom Line

  • As a minimum requirement, I want the seminar discussion to be substantial.
    • For that, at least the issues should be clear.
    • If the issues are clear, even if my analysis is garbage, the seminar can have a discussion that advances that analysis.

Improvements to be made

  • Ultimately, the reason why the discussion remains ambiguous is because specific problems are not presented.
    • They exist in my mind, and I have abstracted them into writing, but I should include more specific discussions.
  • I think it will delve into ethics.
    • More than utilitarianism, hedonism?
    • There are various evaluation criteria,
      • Similar to hedonism: freedom to create any experience, so it is free
        • In that case, preferring natural reality is just conservatism, a bias towards maintaining the status quo.
      • Related to the freedom of preference and choice:
        • Value arises from the choice to immerse oneself in something that is not real.
      • So, in the end, it can be said that the important thing is the possibility of choice in both cases.
        • A summary like that?
      • In the end, this is part of the debate between libertarianism and hedonism.
  • Or is it too subjective to individuals?
    • Ethics
    • On top of that, I believe that VR can be optimized regardless of what values ​​one holds.- I want to talk about this [blu3mo][blu3mo][blu3mo].
  • I want to mention the importance of humility in this [section about the reason for “correctness” (#62cbc5df08a8c5001d7781e0)]62cbc5df08a8c5001d7781e0.
  • It feels like there’s a lot of talk about ethics, but maybe three-fourths of the chapter is not necessary [blu3mo].
  • Read:

Before the preliminary version submission ↓

  • What forms can cause what kind of problems, and what kind of forms are better to prevent them?

  • It might be good to argue that some form of modifying reality is better than starting from scratch.

  • Let’s start by defining VR.

  • If VR can be freely created, it can be considered acceptable from a utilitarian perspective, as stated in [Is Virtual Reality “Evil”?]Is Virtual Reality “Evil”?.

    • However, it is not guaranteed to be free when implemented in society.

  • Normative analysis has been approached from various perspectives so far,

    • but when introducing [Is Virtual Reality “Evil”?]Is Virtual Reality “Evil”?, it may be different.
      • This explains that only the creators of VR are the focus of the discussion and questions the morality of their actions.
        • In this case, deontological ethics can also be considered.

  • The points of normative discussion are difficult.

  • Let’s plan to have the overall structure ready by the end of today.

    • -1200: Write the introduction and overall structure.

  • The current problem is mainly twofold.

    • When discussing ethics/normative issues regarding VR, what is the subject of the discussion?
      • Is it “the introduction of VR” or “the proliferation of VR”?
      • It’s difficult, I don’t know.
        • Is it the comparison of the goodness or badness between “the state before it can be replaced with VR” and “the state after it can be replaced”?
        • The distinction between state and state change should be made.
          • Should state changes also be included in the discussion?
      • Is it the goodness or badness of “the change in perceived information becoming unnatural and unreal”?
        • This also connects to DX (Digital Transformation).
    • Even if the subject of the discussion is narrowed down, the discussion becomes too broad.
      • But I want to have a universal discussion, or rather a discussion that is applicable to a wide range of situations.
    • What should I do?
      • After narrowing down the subject of the discussion to some extent, I want to make an argument similar to the one about AI, that it is about “expanding rather than replacing.”
        • Something like consistency with the will of reality?
        • I want to think about it based on this argument.
        • Yeah, that’s right. The discussion about AI also starts with the issue of “widening the gap between the rich and the poor.”
          • The purpose is not only to analyze the current situation but also to discuss whether certain things are good or bad [blu3mo][blu3mo][blu3mo].
            • If the subject is state change, we can also discuss whether certain changes are good or bad.
        • In short, the goal is to establish the ethical basis for the claim that “this kind of metaverse is a dystopia.”
          • I want to generate this argument first.
        • Proposal:
          • The one that is pegged to the capitalist evaluation axis.

  • We can also talk about the issue of responsibility.

  • Things that will not be discussed in this paper:

    • Discussions related to [technological ethics]?

  • Flow:

    • Step 1: Before discussing ethics, it is important to thoroughly discuss the impact of the social implementation of “artificial reality.”
      • This is where my expertise comes into play.
    • Step 2: Based on that, I want to discuss the ethical good and bad of technology by standing on the shoulders of giants as much as possible.

  • [Introduction to Virtual Reality]

    • Definitions of VR, such as self-projection, can be found here.- This feels like extracting elements of “reality.”

  • However, if we say it’s elements of “Real,” it feels a bit different.

  • We can’t discuss three-dimensionality in relation to truth or lies on Twitter.

  • I feel like incorporating knowledge of the underlying technology is necessary.

  • It’s not just about visuals.

  • The pendulum of “Physical or Digital” no longer exists: JAPAN HOUSE questions the value of Japan | WIRED.jp

    • Agreed that it should be placed on happiness (blu3mo).

  • Next steps:

  • The timeframe of “artificial reality”:

    • If we only discuss the ultimate sense of artificial reality, it becomes just a summary of thought experiments.
    • Therefore, it is necessary to position the sense of artificial reality within the existing lineage.
      • This doesn’t necessarily need to be done through definition, but we can explain the similarity during the evaluation later.
    • At the same time, if we don’t explain that the ultimate sense of artificial reality is achievable, we can’t explain why we don’t discuss it.

  • In fact, artificial reality isn’t really any different from physical reality.

    • Snow Crash’s dystopia is in physical reality, not artificial reality.
      • Actually, drawing a line there is strange.
        • It’s no different whether work is hard but family is happy.
    • Ahh… (blu3mo)
      • But this is only because we’re focusing on happiness.
      • If we use a different evaluation axis, it might be considered bad.
      • Even in terms of happiness, we can discuss artificiality.
        • Is the Metaverse a Utopia of the Internet or a Nightmare of Reality? | Newsweek Japan Official Site
          • Criticism of being controlled by Facebook is mentioned.
        • Expanding on this, it’s a discussion of whether it is technologically possible to optimize happiness in artificial reality (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo).
          • One factor would be the intrusion of a capitalist evaluation axis, but other points can be brought up as well (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo).
          • Are there other evaluation axes besides capitalism?
          • Also, this is a discussion for later, but can we completely eliminate that evaluation axis?
            • It’s called “Decentralized,” but can it work? (blu3mo)(blu3mo)
        • Also, in regards to the argument of “It’s just a matter of getting used to it,” it might be possible to argue against being conservative.
        • In the lineage with SNS,
        • It’s important whether this discussion can be done in a mece way.

  • 20220628

    • What’s next?
      • Document what’s currently in my head.

Outline ver.2- First, let’s start with definitions.

  • Let’s first discuss Is Virtual Reality “Evil”?.

    • Based on that, let’s critically examine and clarify the evaluation criteria.
    • For each evaluation criterion, come to a conclusion of “good” or “challenges”.

  • Then, let’s address the remaining issues.

    • If we adopt the evaluation criteria of Is Virtual Reality “Evil”?, the moral responsibility of artificial creators becomes a focal point.
      • Connect this to meta discussions and talk about potential negative consequences related to capitalism, using specific examples.
      • Norms
    • If we can bring up other evaluation criteria, we can also discuss them.
      • The case of Niantic seems relevant.
        • This could be related to the selectivity of VR.
          • But if we relativize it…
      • The value of “authenticity” and the preference for the real thing.

  • I have a desire to engage in a discussion about whether there is a special value in “natural reality”.

    • As a broader discussion, there is a debate between physical and digital, and VR can be seen as an example of that.
    • As a premise, currently, there is a superiority of natural reality in terms of reality.
    • As a scenario for the future, there are two possibilities:
      • and which one will it be? That’s the question.
      • This is it. (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)

  • I realized that I might be imposing criticism on others by relying too much on the word “dystopia”.

    • Maybe I should criticize and think for myself more simply.

20220624-

  • I want to define the term “metaverse” that we are dealing with. This is a place where we should use our minds rather than just doing research.

    • I think the definition may have variables.
      • It is often said that “whether it becomes a dystopia depends on the future,” but it would be valuable to clarify which variables are related to goodness or badness.
    • Elements
      • Diversification of communication spaces
        • (Broad sense of communication)
        • I feel that there is not much difference from the independent local gatherings.
        • Is the difference between digital (involving Window Technology) and reality Discord/VRC/SNS vs reality?
          • It allows individualization of reality.
            • The movement to expand that range can also be captured by the spread of telephones and SNS.
            • Should we make this “expansion” the subject of normative discussion? (blu3mo)(blu3mo)
          • If individualization leads to individual optimization, then people may stop sharing reality.
            • But that doesn’t seem much different from 100 years ago…?
      • Asymmetry of shared reality
      • Artificiality of reality
        • This seems important.
        • It is connected to the capitalist motivation through the artificiality, and also to the algorithmic filter bubble.

  • What about the discussion of the benefits?

20220620

20220618-

Public sociology in the age of social media.

  • 20220617

  • Policy

    • It would be good if there could be a constructive proposal about the current society in some way.
      • In that sense, it seems to be close to engineering research.
    • As a personal motivation, I have a desire to affirm a relativistic society.
    • Ultimately, because the current situation is too broad, I would be happy if I could connect it to phenomenological sociology by deciding on a specific topic.
    • The theme might be something like “Is the ‘Metaverse’ a ‘Dystopia’?”
      • The definition of “Metaverse” is a pluralistic reality.
        • I use this term with the intention of connecting with recent society.
        • I think it also applies to the filter bubble of SNS.
      • I want to discuss the definition of “Dystopia” as well.
        • I also want to discuss the ethical logic behind why “Dystopia” is considered bad.
        • The vague criticism using words like “inhuman” tends to be criticized, but I want to organize the theories behind it (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo).
          • In the end, it seems to be a discussion of metaethics (blu3mo).- Criticizing the “dystopia criticism” that is easily fabricated is like using a straw man argument.
    • First, let’s define the “dystopia criticism” that we actually want to discuss.
    • Based on what I have in mind now:
      • Criticism of the poor quality of “Virtual Reality”
        • Saying that you can’t feel someone’s body temperature or emotions without face-to-face interaction
        • You might say that this can be solved if you can transmit temperature information and high-resolution visual information.
          • But I want to consider whether this response is a meaningful argument.
          • Well, I feel like this is an interesting topic that can be shared as a premise.
      • Criticism of someone controlling what used to be a natural “Reality”
        • Like not wanting a Reality influenced by Facebook’s policies.
        • That’s true. (blu3mo) (blu3mo)
          • Can we discuss whether this is a problem that can be solved by technology?
          • It can also be seen as a problem of social structure.
      • Conservative something
        • A backlash against the diversification of reality.
        • How should we explain this?
          • Maybe we can explain this with a perspective of the sociology of science and technology.
          • Addendum: This is beyond the scope of this discussion. (blu3mo)
      • Criticism of the spread of the impact of mechanical individual optimization to “Reality”
        • Like filter bubbles.

        • We are swept away by daily activities such as phone calls, online shopping, games, and scrolling through social feeds. In such a situation, people are allowed to behave in ways that would not be allowed between humans, and algorithms push people into bubbles that reinforce a simplistic view, causing society to become divided. (Niantic)

        • Ah, this is what I originally wanted to discuss.
        • What is the ethical foundation that corresponds to this?
          • I want to think about it and explain it by working backward.

  • It is now pointless to fabricate a future “metaverse” image that can withstand criticism based on technology.

    • It doesn’t make sense to claim that designing a utopia is good.
    • However, I still want to talk about future technology-based topics, so it’s a difficult balance.

  • I agree with the claim that Big Tech’s power is dystopian.

    • Instead, I want to criticize the idea that escapism from “reality” is not good, like the ending of Ready Player One.

  • I want to skim through the literature and extract keywords.

  • It seems that focusing on Phenomenological Sociology would be good.

  • https://researchmap.jp/takakusa/presentations/15514124/attachment_file.pdf

    • The Intersection of Meaning Domains and Technology: An Application of Schutz’s Theory of Multiple Realities

    • Connecting multiple realities theory with AR.

    • Schutz’s concept of “meaning domains” takes a position that treats “reality” as something constructed by subjective experience, rather than adopting the rigid dichotomy of “reality/non-reality.” In other words, from Schutz’s perspective, the relationship is not between “reality” and “non-reality,” but between the “meaning domain of everyday life” and the “meaning domain of games” (and other meaning domains).

      • Oh, “meaning domains” caught my attention.- Phenomenological sociology seems to talk about how Inter-subjectivity can still arise even when reduced to subjectivity.
    • It seems to discuss how this arises in society.
    • As a possible discussion point, it seems like it could be argued that it might be better to not have Inter-subjectivity at all.
      • In that case, one could imagine a worldview that translates reality.

  • The World of Second Offline

  • I want to organize the concepts of the Philosophy of Existence/Recognition in myself.

  • Philosophical research and works on VR.

  • Format

    • It seems that it needs to be submitted in Word, but that’s difficult.
    • So, I’ll write it in Docs and format it in Word at the end.

  • Schedule

  • Dystopian scenario
    • I want to delve deeper into the values of what can be called a “dystopian” worldview within myself.
      • For example, even in a society of total surveillance, if it is normalized and no one feels uncomfortable and the maximization of evaluation criteria is achieved, then it might be fine.
        • Whether surveillance is good or bad is just a matter of values, so if that is normalized, it might be okay.
          • (I think it’s crucial to say that this is just a matter of values)
      • It’s a feeling that was mentioned in 628105c779e1130000922f67.
        • It’s a hypothesis that even if it’s not democratic, if it can achieve the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” or something similar, then it’s fine.
          • It’s uncertain whether maximizing the greatest happiness of the greatest number is appropriate and it’s an ethical issue.
          • In any case, I feel that any architectural system that can achieve the maximization of value is fine.
          • The current problem is that the system is not functioning well, right?
            • (It’s off-topic, but it would be interesting to discuss the architecture here)
        • There are concepts of “procedural justice” and “substantive justice” in legal studies.
          • Here, am I saying that I only care about substantive justice?
          • Substantive justice is difficult to define uniquely, so it’s difficult to pursue, but at least in the current state of democratic nations, it seems to follow the idea of going through a democratic process as procedural justice.
            • However, I’m not convinced that defining the democratic process as “procedural justice” is sufficient (blu3mo).
    • It’s exactly what Mr. Ba Luosheng was talking about in Locked down in Shanghai, I’ve caught a glimpse of our techno-dystopian future.
      • In the article, the author describes life in Shanghai from a “dystopian” perspective, but this is just the impression of an English person living in Shanghai with that value system.
      • The article doesn’t show what’s inside a society portrayed as “dystopian”.
      • If we place the evaluation axis of the “goodness” of society on the feelings of people inside the dystopian society (such as happiness), then it could be seen as a good thing, and I question labeling it as “dystopian”.
    • And I think that question is connected to my technological interest.
      • What I’m interested in is the technology that allows reality (=Truth) to be freely manipulated by placing a membrane of information processing (Window Technology) in the process of perceiving real information.
      • Specifically,- You can enjoy virtual delicious meals every day with a taste presentation device. Here
  • Delusion of a Virtual Timeline
  • It feels like each person continuously sees happy information in their own SNS filter bubble and believes it as truth.
  • Could Panarchy also work? (blu3mo)(blu3mo)
    • I might want to delve into this.
  • If we push this approach to the extreme, could it solve any problem? That’s what I’m thinking. (blu3mo)
    • Regardless of reality, if we apply filters to the perception part, it can be solved.
  • However, these are considered quite dystopian, I think.
    • From the perspective of modern people, a society where this “truth” is not shared by everyone feels like an unsettling dystopia.
  • But, are people happy in this society? That’s what I want to say.
  • In the end, what does this discourse deal with?
    • I want to question whether a believability-oriented society is good without labeling it as a dystopia.
      • I think issues like SNS filter bubbles and post-truth in the real world can also be considered believability-oriented, so I want to discuss them and have a grounded argument.
        • It might be a bit awkward if the Horses Seminar discourse becomes science fiction.
        • However, it would be fun to make some moderate references to research in that area.
      • In questioning this, we would also discuss what kind of society is considered good and how to evaluate it practically.
        • I feel like we should refer to discussions in ethical philosophy for this.
    • Also, as a slightly off-topic point,
      • In a believability-oriented society, when consensus needs to be reached, what happens to “procedural justice” at that time?
        • There is a hypothesis that if we treat the discrepancy in truth as a discrepancy in language and translate the truth, it might work.
    • It would be great if this could serve as a starting point to read related books.Brainstorming Ideas
  • I feel like discussing the future of society based on technology.
  • It might be interesting to talk about things like “Logical Constitution.”
  • I want to do something like “It’s interesting to imagine things that emerge from setting rules.”
  • Maybe something related to Ed-tech that was covered in “Christopher D. Hammond’s TOEFL Advanced English at the University of Tokyo”?
  • Discussing law as a program, like a “Smart Contract.”
    • There is a concept called “Algocracy.”

Graph View

Backlinks