What is your Cultivation+Odium name?[Poll]

[+Bzhydack]

I feel like "Evolution" dont allign with Odium enough. Odium mean rapid, blinking, blowing and sparking, changes. Like emotions. Evolution is slow but constant. I think Evolution would be better with Cultivation + Preservation - preserving with constant change.

So I always saw Cultivation + Odium as Revolution. One rapid, strong move to force change, drived by emotions like fear, loss and feeling of injustice - what generates hate for standing order.

(BTW, isnt Evolution good also for Preservation + Ruin? Like proper Intent of Harmony?)

[Ixthos]

19 minutes ago, Bzhydack said:

I feel like "Evolution" dont allign with Odium enough. Odium mean rapid, blinking, blowing and sparking, changes. Like emotions. Evolution is slow but constant. I think Evolution would be better with Cultivation + Preservation - preserving with constant change.

So I always saw Cultivation + Odium as Revolution. One rapid, strong move to force change, drived by emotions like fear, loss and feeling of injustice - what generates hate for standing order.

(BTW, isnt Evolution good also for Preservation + Ruin? Like proper Intent of Harmony?)

Perhaps, but Odium is also fundamentally the idea of conflict, and War can be both fast and slow, or even glacial and quiet - consider the era between WWII and the early 1990s. Odium doesn't need to be a burning flash of emotion, a sustained struggle and conflict is just as much Odium - remember the old saying, "revenge is a dish best served cold"? Odium by itself isn't about change but conflict, and sustained conflict can produce the most emotion, though in this the focus is on Odium as conflict, which is just as core to the Shard as emotion. Remember, Odium likes questions, likes being challenged, not just feeling emotion.

Revolution could work, though I'm still biased 

Preservation fundamentally is about resisting change - Evolution involved discarding what doesn't work and building on what does, while Preservation is focused on stasis. The Ruin side could work, but Ruin is also about wearing down, not building up. Ruin would be extinction rather than evolution, though one could argue evolution and extinction are related to one another.

 

[Edit] Actually, Ruin and Odium would likely be Extinction, being the same idea of life struggling and changing, but that struggle ending with death, and as Ruin is the opposite of Cultivation in terms of change, Odium and Ruin and Cultivation would be all sides of life changing, both extinction and survival.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Ixthos

[+Bzhydack]

4 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Preservation fundamentally is about resisting change - Evolution involved discarding what doesn't work and building on what does, while Preservation is focused on stasis. The Ruin side could work, but Ruin is also about wearing down, not building up. Ruin would be extinction rather than evolution, though one could argue evolution and extinction are related to one another.

Yeah, but fundamental part of Evolution is small changes to give species better survivibliity. Literaly to preserve life. This is also why Preservation + Something would give Evolution.

Also, Evolution dont always mean conflict. Yeah, it changes species to better survive, but this not always mean conflict, nature is not about fighting just for the fight. Evolution make species fly, climb better, see in the dark...

But Revolution always mean conflict. Always mean fighting, and is also drive by strong emotions. And this is what Odium is about.

BTW, I LOVE  Idea of Cancer Shard. But I think it would be Cultivation + Ruin.

[Pathfinder]

49 minutes ago, Bzhydack said:

Yeah, but fundamental part of Evolution is small changes to give species better survivibliity. Literaly to preserve life. This is also why Preservation + Something would give Evolution.

Also, Evolution dont always mean conflict. Yeah, it changes species to better survive, but this not always mean conflict, nature is not about fighting just for the fight. Evolution make species fly, climb better, see in the dark...

But Revolution always mean conflict. Always mean fighting, and is also drive by strong emotions. And this is what Odium is about.

BTW, I LOVE  Idea of Cancer Shard. But I think it would be Cultivation + Ruin.

Evolution can be quite rapid, and has nothing to do with bettering anything. It is that which is most suitable to the situation continues. A recent example due to climate change. There is a tropical island off in the middle of no where that has a species of lizard. That island was hit with two hurricanes in short succession. Lizards with longer legs became dominant. It was not because longer legs made them to stronger to fight off predators or catch prey. It was not because it increased their land speed, or well just about anything in their day to day existence. It was because since they tended to hang out on branches, when the hurricanes hit, those with longer legs were able to hold onto the branches longer. The longer legs did not assist in any other aspect of their lives. The longer legs would not cause them to survive any better in further day to day occurrences. The longer legs just so happen to be the best thing in that given circumstance and because of that, that trait bred true. 

Evolution is essentially a pachinko machine lol. 

[+Bzhydack]

3 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

It is that which is most suitable to the situation continues.

If this is not "Bettering survivibility" I dont know what is ;-) Your counterexample literaly is example for me. Lizards have better chance of survival hostile envirnoment. And longer legs just happens to be the best solution for this when they needet it NOW.

I remember also old example with black and white butterflys (from the same species), when white ones died when air polution rises, because trees were no longer covered by white lichens and white butterflys were very good seen on bark, but when polution dropes, lichens starts cover trees again, and white butterflys again were able to survive, while black ones died.

[Pathfinder]

40 minutes ago, Bzhydack said:

If this is not "Bettering survivibility" I dont know what is ;-) Your counterexample literaly is example for me. Lizards have better chance of survival hostile envirnoment. And longer legs just happens to be the best solution for this when they needet it NOW.

I remember also old example with black and white butterflys (from the same species), when white ones died when air polution rises, because trees were no longer covered by white lichens and white butterflys were very good seen on bark, but when polution dropes, lichens starts cover trees again, and white butterflys again were able to survive, while black ones died.

We may be arguing semantics, but "bettering survivability" to me is the temperature rises, so then the creature evolved a way to deal with the heat. But that is not how it works. First, it just happens to be some of the creatures could take that rise in temperature, and therefore continued to breed. It is like taking sand and sifting it through finer and finer pans. In hind sight it could be said "ah ha! they evolved temperature regulation to deal with the heat!", when in reality, evolution is just a confluence of events. 

Here is another example:

The Axolotl. Just about every other salamander species morphs from gills to amphibious on entering adulthood. When they were first discovered, it was assumed for a long time that they were just the nascent stage of another species. It wasn't till they were captured, and reproduced, that scientists realized, nope this was the adult stage of this salamander. Research was done into why this was so, and how it was possible. Long story short, because of the introduction of species that was more successful at competing at the food source on land, the terrestrial version of the salamanders in that area died out. That particular watery area happened to provide the right amount of food, and was exclusive to aquatic salamanders. So there no longer needed to be a secondary stage. Now because of climate change and other various variables, that tiny ecosystem is changing. Even the tiniest of shifts is resulting in their deaths. So the evolutionary trait, actually resulted in making them more vulnerable. The whole species can go extinct in an instant. And there are actually a ton of examples of that. 

If we are talking about preserving survivability, then that species of salamander should have evolved a way to compete more efficiently with the terrestrial competitors. But instead, they evolved in such a way that in the long run their entire species can go poof at the slightest provocation. The trait essentially made them worse at surviving because it requires a very specific environment for it to continue. 

Basically evolution does not equal progress. As in, as long as the environment is not in a state of perpetuity, any trait can either be the best or worst trait at any given moment.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Pathfinder

[+Bzhydack]

@Pathfinder Yeah, probably we arguing semantics. I know how evolution works, but still, it favors traits that are giving better survival of species now, in this concrete point of time. Its not the best overall solution, is the best immedietly available solution. Evolution is like constant provisional renovation, with parts you already have, but still this mean the best suited for survival organisms are in favor of this mechanism.

But can we stop off-topic?

[cometaryorbit]

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

Towerlight is a bit os a misnomer, going by pure intent it should be sciencelight

Why is that, though? I really can't see Honor (bonds and oaths) + Cultivation (controlled/directed/shaped growth) combining to make something like "Science". Science sounds more like Cultivation of Knowledge, not Cultivation of Honor.

 

4 hours ago, KaladinWorldsinger said:

I do think that it's freedom from ROW, but it could literally be anything as I still can't understand H+C = Science. Like ya I get it Honor concerns natural laws and cultivation concerns with progress, but science seems like a tiny slice of their combination. I am still shaky on H+O = War, so...

These might just be in-world names not based on particularly deep understanding of the Intent.

"Warlight" may just be called that because Honor's and Odium's forces are currently at war. An actual War Intent would probably involve Valor as well.

And I think Honor being about natural laws is also an in-world understanding trying to fit everything into a framework of just Honor/Cultivation/Odium, without a wider cosmere awareness. Honor didn't actually create natural laws, as human/singer/etc life existed pre-Shattering, so physics must have worked basically the same before. The Intent of Honor is really more about oaths, bonds in the sense of choosing to be bound by your intentions/words etc.

16 hours ago, Ixthos said:

Evolution. Cultivation is growth, becoming stronger, even of thorns. Odium is emotion and conflict, as we know the power likes questions even when Rayse tried to get Sja-anat to just obey. Those two together are evolution.

That's a good fit... though I've suggested Evolution for Harmony+Cultivation before (preserving continuity/elements of the past, destroying what does not survive, growing).

[LewsTherinTelescope]

9 hours ago, Ixthos said:

Cultivation and Odium - upwards growth and nature and the struggle and violence in the environment - Evolution, life battling with life and nature to become better suited for that environment

I like the name "Adversity" for this concept, personally. Bit more specific of a word and also more... Shard-y sounding, in my opinion, but getting at the same idea. (Technically I suppose the word may not have to mean that, but I've almost always heard it in the context of "overcoming adversity" etc, so the connotations of it make it fit well to me even where the definition on the books technically offers more wiggle room.)

[Frustration]

5 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

Why is that, though? I really can't see Honor (bonds and oaths) + Cultivation (controlled/directed/shaped growth) combining to make something like "Science". Science sounds more like Cultivation of Knowledge, not Cultivation of Honor.

Honor is rules as well as bonds.

And the SR is mostly made of bonds

[CryoZenith]

13 hours ago, Bzhydack said:

Also, Evolution dont always mean conflict. Yeah, it changes species to better survive, but this not always mean conflict, nature is not about fighting just for the fight. Evolution make species fly, climb better, see in the dark...

Evolution is about conflict. It's straight up about conflict, always about conflict. Sure, that conflict is a lot of times player vs environment instead of player vs player, but it's conflict nonetheless. As long as a species is not *struggling*, as long as a large percentage of its population doesn't die young, without leaving offspring, it doesn't evolve. Because it's irrelevant how fitness-increasing of a mutation you just got; it won't meaningfully spread if *everyone* is successfully reaching adulthood and reproducing.

[Ixthos]

13 hours ago, Bzhydack said:

Yeah, but fundamental part of Evolution is small changes to give species better survivibliity. Literaly to preserve life. This is also why Preservation + Something would give Evolution.

Also, Evolution dont always mean conflict. Yeah, it changes species to better survive, but this not always mean conflict, nature is not about fighting just for the fight. Evolution make species fly, climb better, see in the dark...

But Revolution always mean conflict. Always mean fighting, and is also drive by strong emotions. And this is what Odium is about.

BTW, I LOVE  Idea of Cancer Shard. But I think it would be Cultivation + Ruin.

As a rule evolution tends to be focused on how things have changed rather than what traits are preserved. Preservation doesn't tie into it well, even if from a technical standpoint is is a component. Yet in general when someone talks about something having evolved, both of life or an institution, the emphasis is on what is different, not what is the same.

Things don't evolve without selection pressure - the idea behind evolution is that some things cope better than others and that affects a change as they are the ones which produce the next generation. Overt conflict? No. But it still is conflict.

The big problem with Revolution is it doesn't fully capture Cultivation's concept of positive change or nature. Revolutions are always human institutions being overthrown, and often reverting to the same or worse condition by the revolutionaries - that is not upwards growth. There is little of nature of positive change, regardless of the feelings of those in the revolution. Some have been helpful, but most are corrupt and self destructive. Revolution certainly ties to Odium, but its connection to Cultivation is weaker.

 

 

10 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

That's a good fit... though I've suggested Evolution for Harmony+Cultivation before (preserving continuity/elements of the past, destroying what does not survive, growing).

That could work too, and my own theory is that Endowment, Cultivation, Ruin, and Preservation, combined are the idea of the natural world and how it can be changed or maintained.

 

5 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

I like the name "Adversity" for this concept, personally. Bit more specific of a word and also more... Shard-y sounding, in my opinion, but getting at the same idea. (Technically I suppose the word may not have to mean that, but I've almost always heard it in the context of "overcoming adversity" etc, so the connotations of it make it fit well to me even where the definition on the books technically offers more wiggle room.)

I think Adversity actually is more strongly Odium's intent than it is a combination. Perhaps Ambition and Odium would be Adversity, as that involves actively using others and harming them to prevent their plans while furthering ones own. Otherwise your point does make sense 

[CryoZenith]

7 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

I think Adversity actually is more strongly Odium's intent than it is a combination. Perhaps Ambition and Odium would be Adversity, as that involves actively using others and harming them to prevent their plans while furthering ones own. Otherwise your point does make sense 

I don't like this strongly antagonistic interpretation to Odium. Odium's Intent (the intent of the shard) is not fundamentally adversarial, I think. Per WoB, Odium is willing to work with others, as long as their common goal is something he wanted to achieve anyway, rather than a common-ground compromise. So the Intent is definitely *uncompromising*, but it's not, on a basic level, seeking opposition to something. It just so happens, by overwhelming probability, that when you're someone who never makes concessions, you will end up in adversarial relationship with others. But that's an outcome rather than a cause. Odium doesn't Intend to be the contrarian; in fact if everyone agreed with him that'd be lit.

[Ixthos]

15 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

I don't like this strongly antagonistic interpretation to Odium. Odium's Intent (the intent of the shard) is not fundamentally adversarial, I think. Per WoB, Odium is willing to work with others, as long as their common goal is something he wanted to achieve anyway, rather than a common-ground compromise. So the Intent is definitely *uncompromising*, but it's not, on a basic level, seeking opposition to something. It just so happens, by overwhelming probability, that when you're someone who never makes concessions, you will end up in adversarial relationship with others. But that's an outcome rather than a cause. Odium doesn't Intend to be the contrarian; in fact if everyone agreed with him that'd be lit.

Odium, despite what it may think, isn't Passion. Odium is caring deeply, and hatred. Hatred fundamentally is the idea of opposition - you can't hate something and want it to continue, and when someone confronts you with something you hate you attack it. 

The highlighted section is particularly important, as Sja-anat disagrees with that view, as does Odium as a Shard.

Quote

“I would be of much more use in the tower,” she said. “Better that I—”
You question? Do not question.
“I will not question.” However, she felt a surging to the power that moved within him. The mind did not like being questioned, but the power … It liked questions. It liked arguments. It was passion.

Interlude I-2 of Rhythm of War

Odium is the Shard of arguments, and arguments are opposition.

 

My own theory on how Odium can take on multiple Shards simultaneously is because it exploits the tension between Shards. Dominion, Devotion, and Autonomy all are opposites in a way - Devotion both complimentary and an opposite to Dominion, as you can be devoted to someone who wants to dominate you, but you can't make yourself a servant while trying to force your will one someone, and both are countered by Autonomy. Ambition is putting yourself first while Mercy is putting others first, and Mercy was involved in Odium's battle with Ambition. Odium is terrified of Harmony initially because, despite how Harmony and thus all the Shards know taking up more power doesn't make you stronger, but because Harmony shows two Shards, the two most opposite Shards, can be united. He became less terrified when he realised that Harmony wasn't actually in Harmony, and my theory is that means Odium could actually tear Harmony apart from the inside unless Harmony can maintain balance within itself. Odium very much is hatred, and hatred is to oppose.

[CryoZenith]

2 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Odium, despite what it may think, isn't Passion. Odium is caring deeply, and hatred. Hatred fundamentally is the idea of opposition - you can't hate something and want it to continue, and when someone confronts you with something you hate you attack it. 

I'm not saying Odium can hate something and want it to continue. I'm saying that the things he does hate, he doesn't hate *for the sake* of hating them. In essence, I'm saying that his Intent is more about allowing himself to freely act on his negative emotions without inhibition, hatred included, but not about *having* the hatred per se.

Quote

 but the power … It liked questions. It liked arguments.

Ok, I will admit, that IS the strongest evidence against my hypothesis that I've seen so far. That really IS some indication of the Intent wanting conflict for the sake of conflict.

But I'm not sure it's enough to make me throw in the towel. We will find out more now that Odium has a different Vessel. We can look at how the actions of Rayse and Taravangian differ and what's left in where they actually overlap will be indicative of "purer" Shardic Intent. Both our positions are falsifiable, which is great, so let's let the data from SA 5 pour in when it will.

[Ixthos]

5 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

I'm not saying Odium can hate something and want it to continue. I'm saying that the things he does hate, he doesn't hate *for the sake* of hating them. In essence, I'm saying that his Intent is more about allowing himself to freely act on his negative emotions without inhibition, hatred included, but not about *having* the hatred per se.

To be fair the other Shards want their intent simply for the sake of them. This is the Stormlight Archive subforum, so the Cosmere stuff is in spoilers, so Mistborn Era 1, Mistborn: Secret History

Spoiler

Ruin wants everything to end, even if, like a planet, they should persist for long periods. Preservation loved the Final Empire because the Final Empire was static - he was practically giddy when talking to Kelsier about the Lord Ruler.

The Vessels may have opinions and motivations and individual directions they wish the power to be used, but the Shard itself is just about the trait, not how or when it is applied.

 

8 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Ok, I will admit, that IS the strongest evidence against my hypothesis that I've seen so far. That really IS some indication of the Intent wanting conflict for the sake of conflict.

But I'm not sure it's enough to make me throw in the towel. We will find out more now that Odium has a different Vessel. We can look at how the actions of Rayse and Taravangian differ and what's left in where they actually overlap will be indicative of "purer" Shardic Intent. Both our positions are falsifiable, which is great, so let's let the data from SA 5 pour in when it will.

Indeed! I look forwards to further discussion on this  Though we should remember Rayse was vulnerable mainly because he was wounded and trying to go one way when the Shard was trying to go another, and Taravangian is fresh to the power so may be able to resist it more effectively. Still, as you say we will have to see what happens in SA5.

[CryoZenith]

5 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

The Vessels may have opinions and motivations and individual directions they wish the power to be used, but the Shard itself is just about the trait, not how or when it is applied.

I understand this. I'm not saying that being a Vessel that has to deal with the Intent of Odium leaves you unrestricted. I'm saying that I don't think "you have to be a contrarian" is in the list of restrictions. It's already restrictive enough that the Intent forces you, when you're at odds with someone, TO hate them and to be uncompromising (even if it's inconvenient, even if it screws over with your goals); it doesn't need to ALSO force you to need to create situations of being-at-odds-with.

Quote

Indeed! I look forwards to further discussion on this  Though we should remember Rayse was vulnerable mainly because he was wounded and trying to go one way when the Shard was trying to go another, and Taravangian is fresh to the power so may be able to resist it more effectively. 

It will be interesting to see what he will have to resist and what he won't have to resist, because even if he overcomes Shardic Intent, we gain information about what he feels resistance against doing and what he doesn't feel resistance against doing.

One way or the other, our positions will either be supported or falsified. Taravangian (the human), is a very ruthless ends-justifies-the-means kinda guy, but his "ends" (at least prior to ascending) were to create a peaceful, happy, united, safe society. If the Intent changes his *ends*, rather than merely changing how he approaches his means and increasing his willingness to destroy obstacles, then I will have been wrong. If the Intent doesn't change his ends at all, but forces him to be less pragmatic (or at least pushes and forces him to resist the push to stay pragmatic) in the way of cooperation or common ground, then I will have been right.

[Ixthos]

1 hour ago, CryoZenith said:

I understand this. I'm not saying that being a Vessel that has to deal with the Intent of Odium leaves you unrestricted. I'm saying that I don't think "you have to be a contrarian" is in the list of restrictions. It's already restrictive enough that the Intent forces you, when you're at odds with someone, TO hate them and to be uncompromising (even if it's inconvenient, even if it screws over with your goals); it doesn't need to ALSO force you to need to create situations of being-at-odds-with.

Mistborn: Secret History

Spoiler

Well Ati did have to want to destroy everything and would even try to break nothingness according to Kelsier when he first saw Ruin, Leras loved anything that remained unchanging and if Ruin was right would actually find an unchanging empty nothing when Ruin is finished (if Ruin stopped at nothing) appealing, 

Cultivation cultivates Odium's successor and even cultivates thorns that would hurt other things she makes, so I think it is reasonable to say Odium makes the vessel hate everything. I don't know if contrarian is the right term, but Odium does strike me as a "fight me!" Shard. The Shards are very restrictive and overriding, the best one can do is direct them, so "I hate you, but not as much as I hate that" type attitude for Odium, or at least try to induce conflict wherever it is.

 

1 hour ago, CryoZenith said:

It will be interesting to see what he will have to resist and what he won't have to resist, because even if he overcomes Shardic Intent, we gain information about what he feels resistance against doing and what he doesn't feel resistance against doing.

Fully agreed. If Taravangian feels one way but also senses the power feeling another, then that gives us information on the Shard. And if he does something and Odium approves, that likewise gives us information

 

1 hour ago, CryoZenith said:

One way or the other, our positions will either be supported or falsified. Taravangian (the human), is a very ruthless ends-justifies-the-means kinda guy, but his "ends" (at least prior to ascending) were to create a peaceful, happy, united, safe society. If the Intent changes his *ends*, rather than merely changing how he approaches his means and increasing his willingness to destroy obstacles, then I will have been wrong. If the Intent doesn't change his ends at all, but forces him to be less pragmatic (or at least pushes and forces him to resist the push to stay pragmatic) in the way of cooperation or common ground, then I will have been right.

Eh, not fully agreed  Again, Mistborn spoilers:

Spoiler

Ati still saw his actions as a kindness. One could argue his ends had changed, but it also could be said his ends stayed the same - to be kind - while his means changed.

I think an attitude from Taravangian of, when someone opposes him, the Shard reacting strongly, the Shard if not the Vessel enjoying it, that would support the idea of Odium as conflict. Basically if the Shard reacts to any conflict, both towards itself or when observing conflict in shows approval - enjoying sensing conflict - that would support the idea of Odium as strongly focused on conflict. Odium is emotion and conflict, so if Odium gets "happier" the angrier and more opposition it garners, sort of like an internet flame war, that would favour the theory. Basically, think of Odium as the attitude that drives people to shouting matches online, and if Taravangian acts that way - happy at the chance to be angry - then Odium is focused on conflict. Only maybe with less shouting and more shardic action. So basically if Odium sees any conflict, whether or not that doesn't directly relate to it, and stops to savour it, Odium is conflict. If Odium becomes weaker or more desperate the more it is opposed, then it isn't conflict. If the Vessel is scared but the power is revelling, then Odium is conflict.

[CryoZenith]

59 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Mistborn: Secret History

  Hide contents

Well Ati did have to want to destroy everything and would even try to break nothingness according to Kelsier when he first saw Ruin, Leras loved anything that remained unchanging and if Ruin was right would actually find an unchanging empty nothing when Ruin is finished (if Ruin stopped at nothing) appealing, 

 

Again, I never disagreed with this. I completely agree that almost* every shard has one (or more) things which they, due to their Intent, care about as terminal goals, in and of themselves. Ruin likes destruction for the sake of destruction, ceteris paribus. Preservation likes stasis for the sake of stasis, ceteris paribus. Honor likes bonds for the sake of bonds, ceteris paribus. Odium has things he uncontextually likes too, absolutely, but I have reasons to doubt conflict is one of them.

*(the reason I say almost is because I don't see how this concept could possibly work with Ambition. The Intent of Ambition is to put yourself first and prioritize yourself and your drive over others. Which... is a meaningless and vacuous Intent on its own. It only means something if there are wants there to begin with. It only means something if the Vessel still has a personality. Hm, let me use the paperclip maximizer analogy. If you program an AI with its utility function concerned solely with paperclips, it will make paperclips. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to destroy, it will destroy. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to preserve, it will preserve. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to prioritize its utility function over others... it will sit there looping doing nothing forever.)

Quote

Basically if the Shard reacts to any conflict, both towards itself or when observing conflict in shows approval - enjoying sensing conflict - that would support the idea of Odium as strongly focused on conflict.

Ok, here's a thought experiment. If Odium succeeded in his mission to Shatter all the other Shards, thus removing the avenue of inter-shard conflict from himself, do you think he would actively want one of the Shards to be restored, such that the potential for conflict is reestablished? Or would he be happy with that state of affairs? This is my biggest issue with the idea that Odium is intrinsically conflict: He seems to act in ways that utterly annihilate opposition (and when the opposition is not "utterly" annihilated, this seems to be because Odium didn't have enough information/skill, not because he wanted the annihilation to be partial). He seems to act in ways that make him win. Which is a strictly suboptimal way to act if the utility function you're optimizing for is the maximization of conflict.

Edited January 27, 2022 by CryoZenith

[Ixthos]

15 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Again, I never disagreed with this. I completely agree that almost* every shard has one (or more) things which they, due to their Intent, care about as terminal goals, in and of themselves. Ruin likes destruction for the sake of destruction, ceteris paribus. Preservation likes stasis for the sake of stasis, ceteris paribus. Honor likes bonds for the sake of bonds, ceteris paribus. Odium has things he uncontextually likes too, absolutely, but I have reasons to doubt conflict is one of them.

*(the reason I say almost is because I don't see how this concept could possibly work with Ambition. The Intent of Ambition is to put yourself first and prioritize yourself and your drive over others. Which... is a meaningless and vacuous Intent on its own. It only means something if there are wants there to begin with. It only means something if the Vessel still has a personality. Hm, let me use the paperclip maximizer analogy. If you program an AI with its utility function concerned solely with paperclips, it will make paperclips. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to destroy, it will destroy. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to preserve, it will preserve. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to prioritize its utility function over others... it will sit there looping doing nothing forever.)

Fair enough, and I suppose we will have to wait as more information on the Shards is revealed. I'm actually working on a theory tying the Shards to the Dawnshards (so each Shard is indexed by which Dawnshards it relates to, given a binary number 0000 to 1111 to indicate which Dawnshard applies)

I actually used the paperclip maximiser as an example with the shards (here) so I fully get where you are coming from. I think with Ambition the idea is fundamentally about prioritising oneself over others, ones own good, so fairly compatible with Dominion - Dominion wants organisation and hierarchy, and likely it at the topic, while Ambition is the ideal that everything is material to be used to achieve some goal, the goal set by the Vessel. Of course, all Shards require an external world to interact with - an empty void would have Preservation do nothing, and Autonomy likewise would likely be content to sit in isolation. We could also apply similar logic to Whimsy - do random things, but which random things should one want? I'm reminded of a G. K. Chesterton quote about George Bernard Shaw, how Shaw said "will something!" and Chesterton noted that Will requires a target, that it doesn't exist as something without a goal.

 

21 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Ok, here's a thought experiment. If Odium succeeded in his mission to Shatter all the other Shards, thus removing the avenue of inter-shard conflict from himself, do you think he would actively want one of the Shards to be restored, such that the potential for conflict is reestablished? Or would he be happy with that state of affairs? This is my biggest issue with the idea that Odium is intrinsically conflict: He seems to act in ways that utterly annihilate opposition (and when the opposition is not "utterly" annihilated, this seems to be because Odium didn't have enough information/skill, not because he wanted the annihilation to be partial). He seems to act in ways that make him win. Which is a strictly suboptimal way to act if the utility function you're optimizing for is the maximization of conflict.

It's a similar thought experiment as to what Ruin would do in an empty universe. Would Ruin try to make something new to destroy it, or sit in the nothing contentedly, or try to actually break nothingness, just like how a character in Secret History observed when first seeing Ruin. I think Odium likely would begin to turn its attention down to smaller scale life, and to the inhabitants of the Cosmere as opposed to its now vanquished equals. Odium would sit unopposed, but foster opposition. Odium and Honour together are War, and thus the idea could be that Odium would be happy with all life in conflict with other life, but no form of life - at least for Rayse's ideal world - would be able to actually attack Odium. A world of conflict while Odium itself remains immune to any attack - conflict, but no threat.

 

I like your post - its pursuing a very interesting topic for discussion 

[CryoZenith]

10 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

I actually used the paperclip maximiser as an example with the shards (here) so I fully get where you are coming from. I think with Ambition the idea is fundamentally about prioritising oneself over others, ones own good, so fairly compatible with Dominion - Dominion wants organisation and hierarchy, and likely it at the topic, while Ambition is the ideal that everything is material to be used to achieve some goal, the goal set by the Vessel. Of course, all Shards require an external world to interact with - an empty void would have Preservation do nothing, and Autonomy likewise would likely be content to sit in isolation. We could also apply similar logic to Whimsy - do random things, but which random things should one want? I'm reminded of a G. K. Chesterton quote about George Bernard Shaw, how Shaw said "will something!" and Chesterton noted that Will requires a target, that it doesn't exist as something without a goal.

I see your point, that all shards need an external world to be there and have features for their Intent to work. But having that being said, Ambition is still unique in the sense that it seems to be the only Intent which *actively relies on the Vessel being a person*. All the other Shards seem like they would still do stuff off the Intent alone, even if their Vessel was in some physiological or magical sense catatonic, but that breaks down for Ambition.

Here's how I would imagine a hypothetical conversation between me and an Ambition Vessel that held the shard for long enough to be subsumed by its Intent.

Spoiler

Cryo: Hello. What is your Intent?

Ambition: Hello. My Intent is to let nothing stop me from achieving my goals.

Cryo: Sounds cool. Here, I have an apple. Do you want this apple?

Ambition: If I wanted that apple, I would stop at nothing from getting the apple. I would pursue the apple with utmost single-mindedness.

Cryo: That's fine and dandy, but do you actually want this apple?

Ambition: No.

I will reserve judgment on whether Whimsy might fit this weirdness too because we don't yet know precisely what Whimsy's Intent is, and there are several ways Brandon could go with that.

Quote

Odium and Honour together are War, and thus the idea could be that Odium would be happy with all life in conflict with other life, but no form of life - at least for Rayse's ideal world - would be able to actually attack Odium. A world of conflict while Odium itself remains immune to any attack - conflict, but no threat.

Hm. Yeah, that would actually be compatible with both our hypotheses, if Odium liked conflict but not to be in conflict himself. It's probably how Rayse saw Odium's intent, to a certain degree.

Quote

I like your post - its pursuing a very interesting topic for discussion 

Thanks, I like how you're engaging with it. This is a topic that I care deeply about for non-fantasy literature related reasons: I have been, for years, thinking a lot about the topic/field of AI Safety and what it takes to build Friendliness into the Seed or Singularity. And the way Realmatics work with Shard and Intent are a pretty cool sandbox to brainstorm the consequences of isolating such and such Intent, or such and such Command, from things like common sense or instrumental goals.

[Ixthos]

Just now, CryoZenith said:

I see your point, that all shards need an external world to be there and have features for their Intent to work. But having that being said, Ambition is still unique in the sense that it seems to be the only Intent which *actively relies on the Vessel being a person*. All the other Shards seem like they would still do stuff off the Intent alone, even if their Vessel was in some physiological or magical sense catatonic, but that breaks down for Ambition.

I believe that comes from the shattered nature of the Shards. When they were whole Ambition likely represented the drive to achieve all the other goals, or was the juxtaposition with Mercy and Devotion in that it was concern for the self rather than concern for others - that Ambition either was the drive to manifest the united goals of the other Shards, or the concern for itself in addition to concern for others. Before being split the Power was - probably - a mind, and that trait had to be preserved in at least one Shard.

 

2 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Here's how I would imagine a hypothetical conversation between me and an Ambition Vessel that held the shard for long enough to be subsumed by its Intent.

  Hide contents

Cryo: Hello. What is your Intent?

Ambition: Hello. My Intent is to let nothing stop me from achieving my goals.

Cryo: Sounds cool. Here, I have an apple. Do you want this apple?

Ambition: If I wanted that apple, I would stop at nothing from getting the apple. I would pursue the apple with utmost single-mindedness.

Cryo: That's fine and dandy, but do you actually want this apple?

Ambition: No.

 take my upvote!

Though I suppose it could possibly also be done with Devotion ("I want to care for things." "Cool. Here is a baby bunny." "... And?"). Alternatively, it could well be that if you offer Ambition an apple Ambition would instantly want it - Ambition could actually be the Shard of want, kind of like Larfleeze, the Orange Lantern, who just wants everything.

 

5 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

I will reserve judgment on whether Whimsy might fit this weirdness too because we don't yet know precisely what Whimsy's Intent is, and there are several ways Brandon could go with that.

True, though that applies to so many of the other Shards. Unfortuantly until we get POV stories from the Shards we don't have too much to go on. There also is potential complication with different vessels. For example (and again, Mistborn: Secret History, and Hero of Ages)

Spoiler

Leras loved the Lord Ruler's immortality and the stability of the Final Empire, even though he acknowledged it caused people pain - admiring the lion while empathising with the lamb. Vin, however, felt the pain of each death. Those need not be contradictions, as Leras might have felt the pain too but it was overridden by his enjoyment of the Final Empire's static nature, while Vin was seeing the world being Ruined, but it is still a key point.

So until we get more information on them, a lot of what we suspect about the Shards, especially based on their names, is just suspicion. 

 

12 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Hm. Yeah, that would actually be compatible with both our hypotheses, if Odium liked conflict but not to be in conflict himself. It's probably how Rayse saw Odium's intent, to a certain degree.

Indeed. What makes the stories so interesting is the potential hypothetical situations and ideas different vessels may have as their preferred outcome. There could be a version of Preservation who would want to travel the Cosmere and freeze each world in time, and a heroic Ruin, if different vessels had taken the Shards.

 

14 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Thanks, I like how you're engaging with it. This is a topic that I care deeply about for non-fantasy literature related reasons: I have been, for years, thinking a lot about the topic/field of AI Safety and what it takes to build Friendliness into the Seed or Singularity. And the way Realmatics work with Shard and Intent are a pretty cool sandbox to brainstorm the consequences of isolating such and such Intent, or such and such Command, from things like common sense or instrumental goals.

I'd love to talk to you further on both this and that topic if you like. That too is something dear to my heart 

[CryoZenith]

18 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Alternatively, it could well be that if you offer Ambition an apple Ambition would instantly want it - Ambition could actually be the Shard of want, kind of like Larfleeze, the Orange Lantern, who just wants everything.

Hmmm. Haven't considered this. If that's the mechanism by which Ambition's Intent actually works, then an AI programmed with this as the utility function wouldn't be a motionless pile of transistors, it would actually do stuff. I will have to think about it, it's a very good point.

Quote

Spoiler

Leras loved the Lord Ruler's immortality and the stability of the Final Empire, even though he acknowledged it caused people pain - admiring the lion while empathising with the lamb. Vin, however, felt the pain of each death. Those need not be contradictions, as Leras might have felt the pain too but it was overridden by his enjoyment of the Final Empire's static nature, while Vin was seeing the world being Ruined, but it is still a key point.

 

Spoiler

Admiring the lion while empathizing with the lamb is a fair analogy. The one I would go for is appreciating bunnies are cute while acknowledging that they must be hunted down, brutally if necessary, to prevent them from overpopulating themselves into extinction. Leras fundamentally cares about humanity not going extinct to the detriment of how much humanity needs to suffer in order to not go extinct. It's sort of like a hyper-radical, deontological stance against medically assisted suicide. Whereas Vin has not held the Intent for long enough to concede the position.

Btw, if you ever watched Arcane :)...

Spoiler

The mutation must survive.

 

Quote

I'd love to talk to you further on both this and that topic if you like. That too is something dear to my heart 

Sounds good. Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowski?

[cometaryorbit]

7 hours ago, CryoZenith said:

As long as a species is not *struggling*, as long as a large percentage of its population doesn't die young, without leaving offspring, it doesn't evolve.

Technically speaking, every living population evolves, all the time. A state of zero evolution (Hardy Weinberg equilibrium) involves conditions impossible to meet in the real world (infinite population size, zero mutations, etc.)

That doesn't mean that obvious change is necessarily happening (stabilizing selection is a thing, where mutations are selected against to maintain the current high fitness state).

Even if hypothetically every individual survived and reproduced equally -- thus no natural selection occurred -- mutations would still accumulate over time. And genetic drift is still possible (thus the "infinite population size" criterion).

Natural selection is the *primary* driver / mechanism for evolution but not the *only* one.

At least that's a population genetics perspective, where evolution is about changes in allele frequencies over time. A paleontologist, who can only see fairly overt changes in physiology, might talk about it differently.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

9 hours ago, Ixthos said:

I think Adversity actually is more strongly Odium's intent than it is a combination. Perhaps Ambition and Odium would be Adversity, as that involves actively using others and harming them to prevent their plans while furthering ones own. Otherwise your point does make sense 

Agreed when it comes to the dictionary definition, but to me the word "adversity" specifically brings to mind the "growing through adversity" idea (and every sample sentence in several dictionaries that I can find actually uses it in a similar way, which half surprises me half doesn't), which is why I like it. The connotation, at least to me, is not just fighting or adversarial behavior, but specifically the idea of fighting a challenge and growing stronger and more resilient, which imo fits well (it's obviously an imperfect word still, but then so are both Odium and Passion, single words will always fail to capture even a single Shard fully, let alone several). Obviously your mileage may vary when it depends on implicit connotation only, of course.

5 hours ago, CryoZenith said:

*(the reason I say almost is because I don't see how this concept could possibly work with Ambition. The Intent of Ambition is to put yourself first and prioritize yourself and your drive over others. Which... is a meaningless and vacuous Intent on its own. It only means something if there are wants there to begin with. It only means something if the Vessel still has a personality. Hm, let me use the paperclip maximizer analogy. If you program an AI with its utility function concerned solely with paperclips, it will make paperclips. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to destroy, it will destroy. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to preserve, it will preserve. If you program an AI with the sole utility function to prioritize its utility function over others... it will sit there looping doing nothing forever.)

Yeah, Ambition's a weird one. Sort of reminds me of Honor, actually. "I want you to keep an oath." "An oath to what?" "I dunno, an oath!"

So I imagine Brandon's got something worked out, the same way he did make Honor work, but I'm extremely curious what specifically he's doing with it.

9 hours ago, Ixthos said:

The highlighted section is particularly important, as Sja-anat disagrees with that view, as does Odium as a Shard.

Yeah, agreed. Perhaps also relevant:

Quote

The battlefield decayed further as Venli sought refuge. Screams. Lightning blasts. She saw in it something more terrible than just a clash over the future of their peoples. She saw something that enjoyed the killing. A force that seemed to be growing with the new storm, a force that loved passion, anger—any emotion, but especially those that came when people struggled.