What Do You Want?

Hippyhead

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. Few to none of us know what we REALLY want because what we really want has so rarely if ever been an option that we have so little real experience in considering it.

Sure, I like to joke about dating Diane Lane, or flying like a bird through the galaxy, or some such. I vaguely day dream about visiting some of the amazing landscapes here on Earth. Sometimes I get almost half serious about wishing I might someday learn how to shut the ###$% up. But none of this is ever going to happen, and I know that, so my investigation in to such desires is shallow and fleeting.

So instead I focus on the doable. I want to go to the park tomorrow. I want to write a better forum post. I want to have pasta for dinner. This is where most of us spend most of our time, within the confines of the limits imposed by reality.

Will a coming virtual reality realm change our dreams and desires in a revolutionary manner? Will it allow us to work our way through all the experiences we think we want, get a lot of that out of the way, and begin to discover what it is we really want?

Ok, so I've dated a digital representation of Diane Lane which is so realistic and so interactive that if you take a puff on the pot pipe you can only just barely tell the difference between the real Diane and the digital Diane. My mind cooperates by meeting the fakery half way and accepting the illusion.

Now what? How about 12 Diane Lanes? Ok, let's try that.

Ok, now I've been there and done that too. Now what? 20 Dianes seems redundant, more of the same, kinda boring really. So my mind is forced to look further in search of whatever it is it really wants.

Assuming we don't blow ourselves up (probably the safest bet) it seems inevitable that one way or another we will create digital realities that so accurately represent real life that our minds will be willing to buy in to the illusion. And then in a sense the illusion will become real, because we will be interacting with our environment just as we've always done.

100,000 years ago some cave men and women were sitting around a fire telling stories. In real life the men were terrified of the animals they had to kill and their hunts were usually dismal failures. But in the stories the men were always strong and brave, and their arrows always true. In real life the women were skinny, cranky, mostly toothless and covered with sores. But in the stories the women were always beautiful queens, elegant, charming and welcoming.

Virtual reality is not new. We've been doing it since the very beginning. Why inhabit an often cruel real world when one can instead inhabit a wonderful imaginary realm where we are gods? This logic has always been there, calling to us, seducing us with it's charms.

What's going to happen when we finally get what we've so long dreamed of, that which lies beyond our dreams?

unenlightened

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. Few to none of us know what we REALLY want because what we really want has so rarely if ever been an option that we have so little real experience in considering it.

[snip]

... more of the same, kinda boring really. So my mind is forced to look further in search of whatever it is it really wants. — Hippyhead

This the logic. The known is always 'more of the same'. You have noticed the limitation of desire, and the inherent contradiction it contains. There is no remedy in the virtual, because there is no real novelty there; the virtual is inevitably an extension of the known.

What's going to happen when we finally get what we've so long dreamed of, that which lies beyond our dreams? — Hippyhead

But then your last question wants to bring what must necessarily be beyond the known within the known. You are bored with a virtual Diane Lane because she is a cliche. There is a lover you will still not know after 40 years of intimacy, and thus you will never be bored. And I am going to tell you nothing more, because I am kind and you are easily bored.

Hippyhead

There is no remedy in the virtual, because there is no real novelty there; the virtual is inevitably an extension of the known. — unenlightened

Ok, that makes sense, thanks. Hmm....

My theory so far, just an exploration, is that the virtual may expand our imaginations beyond what we currently feel is possible. So now my dreams are small, but maybe with virtual they grow wider.

Trying to ask, if we can have essentially anything we want, what might we discover about ourselves?

Lots of questions here. No answers. I have no idea.

Ciceronianus

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. Few to none of us know what we REALLY want because what we really want has so rarely if ever been an option that we have so little real experience in considering it. — Hippyhead

I want a colossal statue in my likeness to erected in Chicago on the Chicago River, say at the State Street bridge (I like Marina City), standing athwart the river, one foot on each side. Like the Colossus of Rhodes as imagined, portrayed standing athwart the harbor. Well, clothed differently, as I am shy.

Sadly, it's unlikely that my benign countenance will ever loom over Chicago in this manner. However, I easily have, and enjoy, the real experience of considering it.

Hippyhead

Well, clothed differently, as I am shy. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, you obviously know nothing about virtual reality, which will inevitably be dominated by porn.

Wait, was that you on shy-porn.com ? Ok, sorry, I didn't recognize you at first. :-)

You can find me on stupid-joke-porn.com!

Ciceronianus

You can find me on stupid-joke-porn.com! — Hippyhead

That won't be necessary, as I can find you as much as I want to here.

Hippyhead

But then your last question wants to bring what must necessarily be beyond the known within the known — unenlightened

Ok, yes, it's an exploration, bringing the unknown in to the known. That's a good way to put it.

What makes the unknown interesting is my ignorance of it. And I am seeking to destroy the ignorance. Which will in turn kill the interest.

Is that somewhere near your point?

praxis

Why inhabit an often cruel real world when one can instead inhabit a wonderful imaginary realm where we are gods? — Hippyhead

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel.

Hippyhead

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel. — praxis

Thank you for chanting your usual dogmas.

But ok, you're right, in that getting what we want might make us, um, less cooperative with other humans. That may already be happening.

If I can cook up digital Diane Lane to order any time I want, what's my motivation to have patience with inconvenient real world human contacts? It seems cooperation is often built upon a foundation of mutual need, and if the need is removed.....?

This is all very real for me. Except for my lovely wife whom I adore, I spend all my time either on the net doing exactly what I want, or in the woods where I've learned to bond with nature. What do I need real world humans for at this point? Answer unclear...

tim wood

What do I need real world humans for at this point? — Hippyhead

The what not to be confused with the whether. Does that help?

praxis

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel.
— praxis

Thank you for chanting your usual dogmas. — Hippyhead

It stands to reason that if there can be a virtual heaven then there can be a virtual hell. Imagine, for example, if someone programmed your digital Diane Lane to be a zombie that nibbled on you for a few hours or days, or weeks.

Jack Cummins

↪Hippyhead

Some people seem to always know what they want. I remember even at school people who had really clear plans. I was never like that because I have always been a bit of a drifter and even I decide I what I want it often does not happen, or sometimes it happens so suddenly that I can hardly cope with the reality

But knowing what you want is probably important because there is the law of attraction I do think there is some truth to this idea because I do think I can see a relationship between what I wish for and what happens. Negative thoughts can sometimes lead to bad experiences and I am probably guilty of getting into this trap as well. I find that I have to get myself into the right mindset each day. Also, some days just seem to go badly from beginning to end while others seem great. It may be related to subconscious intent.

Of course, I expect some people do not believe in the law of attraction at all and of course they could be right. Perhaps some of us are just luckier than others. But having goals is important but I think that it is best to have some reserve ones too because the more one builds up hopes for a certain goal if it does not happen it can seem catastrophic.

Hippyhead

I remember even at school people who had really clear plans. I was never like that — Jack Cummins

Sounds familiar! My college roommate decided he wanted to be a doctor about 3 weeks after we entered college together, and then he totally vanished in to the medical education system for about 15 years before emerging a surgeon. A HUGE decision made quickly and relatively easily.

50 years later I'm STILL trying to decide what I wanna be when I grow up. :-) Hmm, I think I'll be a person who never grows up. Yup, that's it!

Hippyhead

Perhaps this thread could also be titled...

What Happens When We Get Everything We Want?

TheMadFool

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. — Hippyhead

:rofl:

On a serious note, there's an unsettling paradox with desire/want. Sorry Buddhists. I mean there are two options here: 1. Want or 2. Not to want but what's troubling is 2. Not to want can be rephrased, salva veritate, with 3. I want not to want. Surely 1 contradicts 2 via the "Not" and yet we have 3.

Desire 1:
Perhaps if we look at a simpler version of want/desire, we might be able to solve this puzzle. Say X says "I want water" and then, a little later, X announces "I don't want water". There's a clear contradiction in X's statements - earlier X wanted water and then later X didn't want water. Do you smell anything fishy?

Desire 2:
Now, let's tackle the want paradox. X says "I don't want to want" i.e. X wants, like a good Buddhist, to end desire. However, what X said can be rewritten as "I want to not want" and that means fae is in a fix for it becomes impossible to not want to want for it's equivalent to to want not to want.

It's clear that in the case of Desire 1, we can't treat it as X is saying "I want to not want water" but in the case of Desire 2, there seems to nothing amiss when we take X as saying "I want to not want".

Do you mind having a look at this? Thanks

Hippyhead

Well, yes, that's perhaps a Buddhist kind of conundrum.

I'm think of something more like this. When I was young I was friends with some very rich people who lived nearby. Nice folks, but there was a sadness there.

What happens when you can have anything you want, and you get it, and you're still not happy? What then?

Most of us can think, when I get XYZ I'll be happy. And then we can spend years chasing XYZ. What if we're handed XYZ immediately, and it doesn't work?

That's what might be coming as virtual reality takes over. I finally get to date Diane Lane all day everyday, dream come true, except that it doesn't change much. Now what?

TheMadFool

↪Hippyhead

At the risk of boring you, I'll continue to harp away at the paradox I presented to you. One way out of the vicious circle I mentioned earlier is to specify what are valid objects of desire/want. If we restrict desire to physical objects, ideas and whatnot but exclude the act of desire itself from the class of objects that can be desired then we have, in our hands, an exit point from the loop. Do you see any way of doing this? What criteria could exclude the act of wanting from everything else? :chin:

Another way to look at the issue would be like this:

X = I don't want anything = I want nothing??!! :chin:

Hippyhead

What criteria could exclude the act of wanting from everything else? — TheMadFool

We use virtual reality to become armadillos? Seriously, I don't see a human based solution to excluding the act of wanting. Maybe some theorize they can, but even if so, way too rare to be relevant.

Dunno. Maybe I don't get your point and am not being helpful.

TheMadFool

We use virtual reality to become armadillos? Seriously, I don't see a human based solution to excluding the act of wanting. Maybe some theorize they can, but even if so, way too rare to be relevant.

Dunno. Maybe I don't get your point and am not being helpful. — Hippyhead

No problem. Just thought I could pick your brain on something I haven't resolved.

I have a response to the version of the want paradox that goes like so: I don't want anything = I want nothing. Imagine a person, X, who lives in a world with only two objects, Y and Z and there's no such thing as nothing in X's world. If X says "I don't want Y" then it doesn't mean X wants Z. Z is the complement of Y and vice versa. According to the logic of I don't want anything = I want nothing, I can change the "don't want" to "want" if I replace the thing not wanted by its complement (in a set theoretical sense). This doesn't work for X in his world with Y and Z. X says "I don't want Y" but that doesn't mean X is saying "I want Z" :chin:

Pinprick

I always thought Nietzsche got this question right.

“Man would rather will nothingness than not will,”

IOW’s we simply want to continue wanting forever.

Pinprick

I have a response to the version of the want paradox that goes like so: I don't want anything = I want nothing. — TheMadFool

I started a thread a while back that basically dealt with this, but regarding belief instead of “want.” I would argue that “I don’t want anything” is not equal to “I want nothing.” To me, phrases like “I want X” imply an intent to possess/own something. Therefore, X must be an actual thing, and nothing is not a thing.

TheMadFool

I started a thread a while back that basically dealt with this, but regarding belief instead of “want.” I would argue that “I don’t want anything” is not equal to “I want nothing.” To me, phrases like “I want X” imply an intent to possess/own something. Therefore, X must be an actual thing, and nothing is not a thing. — Pinprick

Good point! Just what I was trying to get at with Hippyhead. There has to be some limiting condition on what can be desired, something you've just alluded to in your post - nothing isn't possessable like, say, a house/car is.

That out of the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that in everyday conversation it's true that "I don't want anything" is taken to be equivalent to "I want nothing". This, as you've shown, is clearly an error but that it's entered into common usage begs an explanation. Any ideas on that front?

Also, what about the actual paradox itself? What qualities of the act of desiring/not desiring disqualify them from being objects of desire. I mean what's the error in taking the sentences, 1. Not to want and 2. Want to not want as equivalent?

Pinprick

Any ideas on that front? — TheMadFool

Ignorance. It’s the same with how in common language sentences that use double negatives are still interpreted as making a negative statement, rather than a positive one. “I don’t have nothing” literally means “I do have something,” but is usually interpreted as “I don’t have anything.”

I mean what's the error in taking the sentences, 1. Not to want and 2. Want to not want as equivalent? — TheMadFool

Because “not wanting” is not an action. It’s the lack of an act (wanting). So you can’t say that you’re performing an act by not acting. Wanting to not want is incomprehensible in the literal sense; like heat that’s not hot.

Hippyhead

IOW’s we simply want to continue wanting forever — Pinprick

Ok, seems reasonable, so what happens when we get everything we want?

I want everything I can imagine. I get it. Now what?

TheMadFool

Ignorance. — Pinprick

Care to expand on this?

double negatives — Pinprick

I don't see how this is relevant. Double negatives don't show up in the want paradox. The notion of complements is different from the notion of double negatives as far as I can see.

Because “not wanting” is not an action. — Pinprick

Let's go over what I said a couple of posts ago:

Want scenario A
1. I want water
2. I don't want water

Want scenario B
3. I don't want to want
4. I want to not want

In Want scenario A, statement 2 is clearly rejecting water. There's a clear semantic difference between statements 1 and 2. No issues there.

However...

In Want scenario B, statement 3 is rejecting want just like statement 2 in Want scenario 1 is rejecting water. So far so good. But then statement 4 is considered semantically equivalent to statement 3 but the problem is that statement 4 is itself an expression of want.

In summary:
5. I don't want to want = I want to not want
6. I want to not want contradicts I don't want to want

This is the paradox. Can you give this a second look if you don't mind? Thanks

Pinprick

Ok, seems reasonable, so what happens when we get everything we want? — Hippyhead

Two things:

1: That isn’t possible, because what you want is to continue wanting. So getting what you want means continuing to want.

2: That is actually the state of things right now. You’re continuously wanting, so you’re getting what you want.

Pinprick

Care to expand on this? — TheMadFool

You seemed to be asking why in everyday language “I want nothing,” and “I don’t want anything” are equivalent. I’m saying it’s because in everyday language we don’t strictly follow correct grammar or other rules of language. I guess the bigger picture is that when we communicate we have an intent; there’s something specific we want to communicate, and in everyday language if we can figure out the intent of the other person we typically ignore any errors they may have committed. This is why at dinner when someone says “pass the butter” I don’t bother correcting them that it’s actually margarine. I know what they mean, and that’s all that matters. It’s the same thing with “I want nothing.” I know that “I don’t want anything” is what is actually meant, so I let it slide and avoid seeming like a know-it-all if I correct them.

I don't see how this is relevant. — TheMadFool

It was just an example of how we don’t really bother with technicalities in everyday language, and that because of this when these errors are made they go uncorrected, which allows them to persist in usage.

This is the paradox. Can you give this a second look if you don't mind? Thanks — TheMadFool

The more I think about it, I’m second guessing whether or not “wanting to continue wanting” is even possible, and I think the issue is the same as the paradox you describe.

If you think of “want” as a set or category that contains objects capable of being wanted (cars, money, sex, love, etc.), then I’m not sure that “want” can logically be in both categories. Nor am I sure that “not wanting” can belong in the category of things capable of being wanted for the same reason. “Not wanting” should be it’s own separate category filled with things that are not wanted (death, pain, COVID, etc.).

So in language, if we’re going to say “I want...” the “...” must be something contained in the category “want” and vice versa. Make sense?

Gnomon

Sure, I like to joke about dating Diane Lane, — Hippyhead

That admission dates you. I, too, am an elderly Lane lover. Where can I find a virtual Diane? When Actual is not possible, Virtual may be better than nothing. :joke:

Gnomon

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. — Hippyhead

That's because your heart's desire is not expressed in concise words, but in ineffable feelings.

The Buddha knew what you want : the unobtainable. Which is the cause of your suffering.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning

Ineffable : too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words.

Want :
1. have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.
2. a lack or deficiency of something.

TheMadFool

↪Pinprick

Firstly, your explanation for the want paradox is just a case of bending/breaking the rules of language. There being two aspects to language I'm familiar with viz. syntax and semantics, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the error is not with syntax. The problem seems to be semantical in my view and also logical to some degree, I'm not completely certain. Are you aware of any linguistic concept that is relevant to the paradox?

D = I don't want anything = N = I want nothing

Now that I think of it, since we're concerned with the logical equivalence of statements D and N, the problem is one that has to do with both semantics and logic.

My drive-by results:

1. To want and To not want are contradictory and can't be substituted for each other. Ergo, there's an egregious logical error in replacing "I don't want..." with "I want..."

2. There's an attempt, by ordinary language users, to compensate the error I referred to in 1 by using the complement of sets. This appears as "anything" being replaced with "nothing" and we get from D, the allegedly logical equivalent, N

3. The world can be neatly divided into (necessarily) things that one wants and things that one doesn't want. If I were someone who would utter the statement D = I don't want anything then, everything would be in the class of things I didn't want and, as it turns out, nothing in the class of things I want. This is my explanation for why D = N.

What's your take on this?

Secondly, regarding how want/not to want itself can't be valid objects that can be wanted/not wanted, we must look at how it all began, the Buddhist goal of extinguishing want. It basically states: I don't want to want but notice that this statement already assumes that want is valid object for want by not wanting it. Hence, I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary when I claim that "I don't want to want" = "I want to not want".

What say you?

Pinprick

Are you aware of any linguistic concept that is relevant to the paradox? — TheMadFool

No. Honestly, this is all rather over my head. I’m just expressing my own thoughts, I don’t really have any technical knowledge of linguistics.

What's your take on this? — TheMadFool

It’s tricky, but the only thing I can think of is that D and N are not actually equivalent, they only appear to be. If you just look at the subject and verb in each sentence separately, you’ll see that they are opposite (“I want” and “I don’t want”). To want implies that you experience the feeling of wanting. If you want nothing, are you still experiencing the feeling of wanting? I would argue that you don’t, which is why I say that statement is self-contradictory. You can’t both want and not want.

What say you? — TheMadFool

I guess in this particular case logic doesn’t really matter since what you’re talking about is human emotion, which is by definition irrational. If you’re describing something irrational, your description wouldn’t be accurate if it was rational itself. Right?

What Do You Want?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories