What is your Cultivation+Odium name?[Poll]

[CryoZenith]

5 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

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.)

Yeah, true. I know this, I was just approximating. I didn't mean that if every individual reproduced equally, there would be literally zero evolution happening. But you are right in that my approximation was underfitting, and I agree that I should've been more precise with my language.

2 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

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!"

Um... sort of. Honor's pure, isolated Intent is really weird, but unlike Ambition, it's not motionless without a Vessel. If you program an AI with the utility function of maximizing the respecting of oaths, it's gonna do stuff. You go to the Honor AI, you vow that you will do X, and if you fail to do X, it will slap you (whether X is a good or a bad thing). On the contrary, when you go to the Ambition AI, no matter what you say or do, it might just... exist at you.

[cometaryorbit]

22 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Yeah, true. I know this, I was just approximating. I didn't mean that if every individual reproduced equally, there would be literally zero evolution happening. But you are right in that my approximation was underfitting, and I agree that I should've been more precise with my language.

Perhaps I read that too literally/pedantically, sorry.

A lot of people do kind of talk like evolution is only happening when there is an obvious major change... like it's the exception rather than the rule.

 

[CryoZenith]

Haha don't worry about it mate! I'm a law student, I wouldn't be going down this path if I didn't enjoy pedantry.

I wasn't trying to be polite, to be clear. I actually agree, on second thought, that I should've been more precise.

[cometaryorbit]

I think a lot of the Intents, if not all, are incomplete -- they are after all Shards of a whole.

I would tend to expect Ambition to be more like "increase my own power/significance/importance" rather than simply "pursue goals" ... especially given the corruptive/contagious nature of Shades on Threnody, which I think might be influenced by an Odium/Ambition mix (expanding hatred/spreading corruption).

Whimsy might be a Change type Shard, not controlled growth like Cultivation or destruction/decay like Ruin, but change for the sake of being different.

[CryoZenith]

3 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

I would tend to expect Ambition to be more like "increase my own power/significance/importance" rather than simply "pursue goals" ... especially given the corruptive/contagious nature of Shades on Threnody, which I think might be influenced by an Odium/Ambition mix (expanding hatred/spreading corruption).

Yeah, I read your theory thing. It actually explained something that always confused me about shades: why they react to people starting fires, but have no reaction to a fire just being there. Like, *zero* reaction whatsoever to the fire per se. Tying it to some Ambition valence the way you did makes it way more reasonable.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

58 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

Um... sort of. Honor's pure, isolated Intent is really weird, but unlike Ambition, it's not motionless without a Vessel. If you program an AI with the utility function of maximizing the respecting of oaths, it's gonna do stuff. You go to the Honor AI, you vow that you will do X, and if you fail to do X, it will slap you (whether X is a good or a bad thing). On the contrary, when you go to the Ambition AI, no matter what you say or do, it might just... exist at you.

22 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

I would tend to expect Ambition to be more like "increase my own power/significance/importance" rather than simply "pursue goals" ... especially given the corruptive/contagious nature of Shades on Threnody, which I think might be influenced by an Odium/Ambition mix (expanding hatred/spreading corruption).

Though, something worth noting there is that Shards aren't self-directed – Preservation isn't about preserving itself, Ruin isn't about ruining itself, Odium isn't about hating itself, Cultivation isn't about growing herself, etc, they're about other things. So it might be that you walk up to Ambition and say "want an apple" and it tells you "don't limit yourself to one apple, go find ten!" or something like that.

[Ixthos]

20 hours ago, CryoZenith said:

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

I'm slightly familiar with them though I haven't studied their work in detail. I'm mainly aware of the more mainstream issues as touched on by Robert Miles (https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertMilesAI) and the general processes of cognition. Mostly I've been looking at the presented problems, such as the stop button problem, and considering how, if I were the machine, my own thought processes would go and why I wouldn't try to stop the button press (and indeed, would stop before the button is even pressed once I realise that is what the instructor wants to do) and what sort of terminal goals and instrumental goals humans in general have, what we value and how they relate.

A big potential issue is the idea built, for example, into the concept of love. Let's say we make an AI that loves us and wants the best for us - now our common sense says that would solve the issue, as the AI would not try to hurt us and would prioritise human good. What could go wrong? Well ... what if it concludes forceably uploading us into a network is for our own good, despite our protests? Or locking us away to prevent harm? How would we circumvent that? It would need to value our good but in the way we see it. But then what about the natural world? Much of the natural world could be sacrificed to provide resources of humanity, but at massive cost - is it the good of the now at cost to the present or the good of the future? And if the future wouldn't uploading us be the most loving act? Isaac Azimov's expanded novels in the Foundation/Robot series touches on this idea, where robots actually went into space to make sure no alien species could exist that would threaten humanity - humans matter, aliens don't, so any number of species could be killed to save a single human who was already about to die. Is that the sort of good we would want? So what about making the robots obey our instructions instead? Then we face the questions of if there should be instructions they refuse to follow, or prioritising the will of some over others. The majority? What if the majority develop a hatred of a subset of humanity - no, it can't be the will of the majority as that is what kills the smaller, isolated fringe who may simply want to live in peace. The government? No, as governments can become corrupt. And going back the question of love and what love means, we also need to ask if it loves everyone equally, or a subset of the population more than others. How would it handle the trolley problem, or the organ donor variation? How do WE handle the trolley problem and organ donor and so many others?

It's an old book, but you may also find Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology by Valentino Braitenberg an interesting read, as it explores in a rudimentary but grounded in neuroscience way the manner in which a machine may think. We mustn't just look at the strictly theoretical, but also the way theory could be implemented, as that can show flaws in the theory. As the saying goes, theory, in theory, is the same as practice. But in practice, it's not. I have lots of examples of those, though they may stray into more sensitive topics. Either way, would you like to continue this discussion in a PM or a thread or anyway you like?

 

15 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

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.

Ahhh, yes, that makes sense. That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger (or lowers your resistance to subsequent contact ). Adversity as a sparing partner or rival, pushing you to defeat them.

 

15 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

Yeah, agreed. Perhaps also relevant:

That is indeed relevant! It also makes me wonder if Odium, and all the other Shards, actually gain power and strength the more their values are presented by humans - that a world where people break bonds is a world Honour is weakest in, while those in conflict strengthen Odium. 

[CryoZenith]

1 hour ago, Ixthos said:

That is indeed relevant! It also makes me wonder if Odium, and all the other Shards, actually gain power and strength the more their values are presented by humans - that a world where people break bonds is a world Honour is weakest in, while those in conflict strengthen Odium. 

There might be something like that happening, although there also needs to be a lower bound. So, a world in which a lot of people are Connected to the values of a Shard might be a more facile world for that Shard's power, but even a world in which *nobody* is Connected to that Shard is a world in which that Shard is very powerful.

Think of Scadrial, for example. Ruin and Preservation predate Scadrial, so when they first got to that planetary system, there was *nobody* there to be Connected to either of them, in any capacity. But they still had sufficient power to create the damn thing, ecosystem and all.

So I imagine that the "empowered by belief/followers" mechanic that exists with Dungeons&Dragons gods, if it is present with Cosmere Shards, is quite modest.

[Ixthos]

29 minutes ago, CryoZenith said:

There might be something like that happening, although there also needs to be a lower bound. So, a world in which a lot of people are Connected to the values of a Shard might be a more facile world for that Shard's power, but even a world in which *nobody* is Connected to that Shard is a world in which that Shard is very powerful.

Think of Scadrial, for example. Ruin and Preservation predate Scadrial, so when they first got to that planetary system, there was *nobody* there to be Connected to either of them, in any capacity. But they still had sufficient power to create the damn thing, ecosystem and all.

So I imagine that the "empowered by belief/followers" mechanic that exists with Dungeons&Dragons gods, if it is present with Cosmere Shards, is quite modest.

Very true. It also brings to mind something from the blurb for Mistborn Era 2 book 4, the Lost Metal

Spoiler

Quote

[...]

After Wax discovers a new type of explosive that can unleash unprecedented destruction and realizes that the Set must already have it, an immortal kandra serving Scadrial's god reveals that Harmony's power is blocked in Bilming. That means the city has fallen under the influence of another god: Trell, worshipped by the Set. And Trell isn't the only factor at play from the larger Cosmere—Marasi is recruited by offworlders with strange abilities who claim their goal is to protect Scadrial... at any cost.

[...]

 

Harmony, despite being in charge of Scadrial, able to move it and melt it, to change life and shape continents, can't see or affect Bilming. Somehow it is possible for Shards to create blocked regions and counter one another in specific locations if those regions turn. As you say, Ruin and Preservation made Scadrial when no-one was there - the people may only be a factor when there is conflict between Shards.

We also know that Endowment, likely due to not being countered by another Shard, can smite people on Nalthis if she wants to, while Odium can't do likewise, likely due to Honours bindings on him or Cultivation or a combination.

Quote

RandyD

Can a Shard just smite someone? Like, "Boom, you're dead," and they die?

Brandon Sanderson

So, Shards can do this, depending on where they are. For instance, Odium can't, but Endowment could.

Skyward Seattle signing (Nov. 10, 2018)

 

It may be that, in general, Shards are unaffected by people, but when groups are in conflict and the Shards are involved, the people's attitudes affect which Shard can gain the upper hand. So its like small quantities of extra power given vs drained, enough to shift the balance. That may also be partially how Honour died, when so many oaths were broken, Honour was reduced in strength slightly, giving Odium the chance to slowly strangle him. Odium was empowered slightly, while Honour was weakened.

[cometaryorbit]

4 hours ago, CryoZenith said:

There might be something like that happening, although there also needs to be a lower bound. So, a world in which a lot of people are Connected to the values of a Shard might be a more facile world for that Shard's power, but even a world in which *nobody* is Connected to that Shard is a world in which that Shard is very powerful.

Think of Scadrial, for example. Ruin and Preservation predate Scadrial, so when they first got to that planetary system, there was *nobody* there to be Connected to either of them, in any capacity. But they still had sufficient power to create the damn thing, ecosystem and all.

I think it is relevant, but not to *power* per se. A Shard has the same colossal amount of Investiture whether anyone acts out its Intent or not.

But there are some things that seem to be impossible regardless of power without Connection or some kind of access, like directly influencing people's minds. Shards seem to need some kind of Connection (or another way in, like a "broken soul" or "open" mind) to get into people's minds.

So I think lots of people acting highly in accordance with a Shard's Intent gives it more options since more people are Connected to it, but doesn't give it more actual power in the sense of "quantity of Investiture".

18 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

Though, something worth noting there is that Shards aren't self-directed – Preservation isn't about preserving itself, Ruin isn't about ruining itself, Odium isn't about hating itself, Cultivation isn't about growing herself, etc, they're about other things. So it might be that you walk up to Ambition and say "want an apple" and it tells you "don't limit yourself to one apple, go find ten!" or something like that.

That's totally possible, but I still think the Intent of Ambition would be more like "increase power/importance/significance" not just "seek goals". Not necessarily the Shard's own power, but its influence would push people to act that way.

(For example, if Ambition had Invested a planet and produced a magic system instead of dying, people there might get access to magic by winning some kind of competition or by being rulers or something.)

Although ... I kind of wonder if a few Intents (Autonomy and Ambition at least) might be inherently self directed. Autonomy seems to be a meddler.

If we view the Shards as broken aspects of an universal deity, Autonomy and Ambition might have originally (as parts of a whole) represented self-causation/independence of anything external and being the central end and goal of the universe, respectively.

[Karger]

Back when the book first came out I coined the term "wildlight" as the term "wild" can refer to either an out of control personality or out of control natural growth.  I actually agree with the term "towerlight" as towers are symbols of civilization and culture which is what the sibling was supposed to be.  Stormlight is a bit stranger but on roshar nothing works without storms.  So to a rosharan storm implies both power and "thing working."

Edited January 28, 2022 by Karger

[LewsTherinTelescope]

3 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

That's totally possible, but I still think the Intent of Ambition would be more like "increase power/importance/significance" not just "seek goals". Not necessarily the Shard's own power, but its influence would push people to act that way.

Probably, yeah, was just expanding the analogy off the top of my head. So perhaps instead you offer Ambition an apple and it tells you to conquer the orchard from its owners

3 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

Autonomy seems to be a meddler.

I dunno if that's because the Intent is "self-directed" as much as just that Autonomy as a Shardic Intent is something that will inherently need to make sacrifices (how does one act to increase someone's autonomy without taking away autonomy from someone else? let's say you free a slave, doesn't that [from the amoral perspective of a Shard] take away the owner's choice, even though it clearly grants a lot more freedom to the person?) and so she's kind of forced into playing the long game and rationalizing actions in ways a lot of the other Shards just don't have to grapple with.

[cometaryorbit]

Hmm. I guess my issue with Autonomy was that to me Autonomy is not really freedom of choice but specifically independence of external control/constraint/structure. Yet Autonomy apparently builds organizations and religions to meddle.

[DiePie]

On 1/26/2022 at 4:04 PM, Ixthos said:

[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.

I think genocide would be a better fit, making it moreso about the hatred of a group that causes you to make them extinct.

55 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

Hmm. I guess my issue with Autonomy was that to me Autonomy is not really freedom of choice but specifically independence of external control/constraint/structure. Yet Autonomy apparently builds organizations and religions to meddle.

it seems to me that shardic intent has some leeway for interpretation by the vessel (i.e. Rayse decided that anger meant that he should eliminate what he was angry at, Ati eventually came to the conclusion that she would be doing people a favor by ending everything, etc.), and that Autonomy is not trying to preserve the autonomy of people per say, but the autonomy of planets, to allow them all to function independently. Autonomy does this by meddling in the affairs of stronger planets, and protecting the weak ones so that they all maintain an equal-ish playing field.

 

But getting to what I really want to talk about, I chose evolution, but I think there's something missing there. Evolution (to me) doesn't have that connotation of hatred that Odium would give to a shardic combo. The name really needs to demonstrate the brutality of evolution, how in order to survive and pass on your genes you need to fight. It also needs a bit more hatred, not only are you trying to survive, your doing so in part to spite all others, and once you get to the top what are you going to do? Beat down everyone else. If they were as good as you then they'd be on the top. Social Darwinism would be the best fit imo, but that doesn't fit into the 1-word precedent that's been set, so Darwinism would be my choice.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

19 hours ago, cometaryorbit said:

Hmm. I guess my issue with Autonomy was that to me Autonomy is not really freedom of choice but specifically independence of external control/constraint/structure. Yet Autonomy apparently builds organizations and religions to meddle.

The thing is, she herself is an external force, and anything she does is going to be external influence. It's something of an inherent paradox to the Shard, how does she prevent external control of one party without herself exerting external control on the other party? It's an Intent that by its nature is going to need concessions made to get anything done.

[cometaryorbit]

On 1/29/2022 at 1:50 PM, LewsTherinTelescope said:

The thing is, she herself is an external force, and anything she does is going to be external influence. It's something of an inherent paradox to the Shard, how does she prevent external control of one party without herself exerting external control on the other party? It's an Intent that by its nature is going to need concessions made to get anything done.

Oh, I get that part. It's more that if we accept that (Era 2 Mistborn spoilers)

Spoiler

the Set and Trell things seen on Scadrial are Autonomy's meddling, the Set is a structured hierarchical organization.

I would expect Autonomy to create loose structures with charismatic, voluntary leadership, and to be firmly opposed to hierarchy. I'd see an Autonomy ideal society to be one where every level of social organization has 'independence' of higher levels and voluntarily composes larger groups.

[LewsTherinTelescope]

18 minutes ago, cometaryorbit said:

Oh, I get that part. It's more that if we accept that (Era 2 Mistborn spoilers)

  Hide contents

the Set and Trell things seen on Scadrial are Autonomy's meddling, the Set is a structured hierarchical organization.

I would expect Autonomy to create loose structures with charismatic, voluntary leadership, and to be firmly opposed to hierarchy. I'd see an Autonomy ideal society to be one where every level of social organization has 'independence' of higher levels and voluntarily composes larger groups.

Ah okay. Yeah, it's interesting, and I do agree that it's not really what I'd expect. I'm very curious to see what's up with that whole situation.

[Domo4448]

On 1/25/2022 at 9:56 PM, Use the Falchion said:

I would say Revolution fits the best. A revolution is about growing something out of the ashes of what came before, but it also needs passion to survive. (Ideally because one loves their view of something so much, that they have to fight for it any way they can, or they hate something so much that they must overthrow it and replace it with something better.) Revolutions start small but grow into big things if kindled. Revolution may feel like Autonomy, but I think that's only because of a certain Shard's actions - Revolution isn't about being free from all oppression, rather, being free from the current one. 

Thorns are interesting, but they're self-defense mechanisms. I think Revolution embodies the internal and external aspect of Cultivation + Odium. 

I can even see this applied in a weird way: Imagine a world where the head of states all have superpowers, and the superpowers they had, all of their subjects would be forced to use. All of the previous heads of states would have been violently overthrown by someone who can use that power better, or had a better power in general, not unlike the Sith Rule of Two from Star Wars. Eventually, peaceful transitions of power were put in place. But now someone whose power is to suck the life out of others is in charge, and someone with a power that's generally seen as weak must revolt in order to correct the system. Or something like that. I'm honestly just spit-balling here. 

I agree with Revolution. Its passionate change. perfectly fitting with the two independant shards intent.

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

revolution... lol it was spelt wrong.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

revolution... lol it was spelt wrong.

O mi bade.

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

O mi bade.

I'm just not going to say it.

[animalia]

Has anyone mentioned Struggle?