[network] @jwatson; text; Morning 167 [open]

[jumpthegun]

Good morning, everyone. I told a number of people I would share the results of my conversation with the Admin, Eve, regarding her ability to correct 'mental imbalances' that might lead to violent impulses. I thought it best to provide what information I got from her with the whole group.

[This conversation is copied over for everyone.]

The upshot of that:

• Eve can 'fine tune' the nanites in our brains for a particular purpose. This will have no effect on MN poisoning symptoms except to make people not care about them.
  
• Use of the treatment requires patient consent. That's non-negotiable given the requirements for a declaration of mental incompetency under the NIMA system.
  
• While the fine tuning is considered an ethical treatment in extreme cases of violent psychopathy, it is considered unethical to try to treat MN Poisoning.
  
• We may be able to alleviate some of the worst instances of MN Poisoning with blood transfusions. I'm presently looking for the equipment I'd need to do that.
  
• Eve was born in Washington D.C. and used to work for the U.S. government.

As an additional note on medical supplies: I've informed the other doctors, but for those newly arrived and those seeking medical assistance, we are beginning to run low on certain medication types.

[Another conversation is copied over.]

The relative medical stocks stand as such:

• Low-grade Painkillers: Low
  
• Mid-grade Painkillers: Acceptable, restock requested
  
• High-grade Painkillers: Acceptable
  
• Specialized Medication: Acceptable
  
• Radiation Medication: Critically low

I've also been previously informed that the emergency medical response injections are out and will take 200 days to restock. That was at a point that would put us past the projected end of this session... or whatever we're calling out time here.

Comments

@Ecks | text

[ecks]

Define mental imbalance. Is mental imbalance what leads to violence? If one has mental balance is one not violent?

[jumpthegun]

It's a very broad term that can mean a lot of things, Ecks. In this particular instance, mental imbalance means that a person isn't capable of controlling violent impulses and shows no remorse, nor makes any personal efforts to prevent the violent impulses from controlling them.

Mental imbalances like the ones I just defined can lead to violence, but not necessarily. There are moments or passion when an emotion might overwhelm someone, even people without any mental imbalances. This isn't about someone having stray thoughts about violence or acting in a one-off way under specific circumstances. This is someone like the Joker who constantly thinks about ways to hurt people just because he can.

There are people with mental imbalances who aren't necessarily violent. They make the conscious decision to seek help for what's going on with them or find ways to prevent themselves from acting on their impulses.

[ecks]

[So not her. She didn't ask directly, but in his answer she gets the feeling that he understands why she asked. Or at least, she hopes that what she did was a one-off way under specific circumstances.]

But we cannot use it to make the Joker stop having his mental imbalance if he does not consent. if Handsome Jack was alive we could not use it on him. The people who need it will not consent.

[Except for J, maybe, but she's not sure J's case is so much more mentally imbalanced than her own.]

if this treatment changes the way a person's mind works does that negate the person's personhood?

[jumpthegun]

No, they won't, which is why the NIMA treatment isn't a viable option for dealing with men like the Joker or Handsome Jack. We'll have to sort out another way.

No. Nothing negates your personhood, Ecks.

[We're going to pretend like there aren't zombie tropes that may become very relevant in their future. Yes.]

[ecks]

[It's reassuring to see him write that again, but she's still troubled.]

does it make them into a different person?

[jumpthegun]

No. From what the Admin's described, it would remove whatever impetus is making them extremely violent for no reason. That's not who they are as people.

[ecks]

it is who the Joker is as a person.

[jumpthegun]

[It's honestly a little difficult to disagree with that.]

He was still a person when he was sane and didn't want to kill anyone, Ecks.

[ecks]

when was he sane?

[jumpthegun]

For a little while after he died. You can probably ask Al more about it.

[ecks]

maybe he was more a person then

[jumpthegun]

He acted more rationally. That's really all I can say about that, Ecks. The questions you're posing here, in a roundabout way, they're philosophical ones. Do you know what philosophy is?

[ecks]

philosophy is thinking about things that are not real and do not matter. ours is to do not to question.

but I think that is a lie

[jumpthegun]

That is a lie, Ecks. Questioning things is part of what helps you learn and form your own ideas about the world. You're where you are because you questioned what you were being told, right?

Philosophy is thinking about things that are abstract and might not always have a right or wrong answer. What makes a person a person? That's a very difficult question to answer because everyone has a different experience of what it means to be a person.

[ecks]

I had an answer to that question but then you said it was not correct.

[Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Thinking that being a person depended on making choices had made it too easy to seem to stop being a person.]

[jumpthegun]

I did say that, didn't I? Technically, it was my opinion, Ecks. But it's an opinion rooted in my experiences and one that seemed like it would make more sense for you to hear and understand. The other thing about philosophical questions is that our opinions can be swayed by things that aren't necessarily facts, but by emotion, ethical norms, or logical conclusions. We refer to those as pathos, ethos, and logos, respectively.

[ecks]

I know pathos, ethos, logos
Those are how to make arguments to make people do things

[Listen, there are certain disadvantages to learning through direct application of concepts.]

is there not eventually a correct answer?

[jumpthegun]

There can be a 'correct' answer for you on a personal level, but you take a question like 'What is the meaning of life?' and that's not going to have a universal answer. For me, it might be taking care of the people I love and making sure they're safe and happy. For someone else, it might building a legacy that they can pass on for generations. Those answers are different, but they're both correct to the people who believe them.

[ecks]

if two answers conflict they cannot both be true.
those two answers do not conflict probably but other answers could.

[jumpthegun]

The meaning of life to Person A is to gather as many material possessions as humanly possible to make the lives of their family better and richer. This brings them joy.

The meaning of life to Person B is to give away all of their material possessions to make the lives of others better and richer. This brings them joy.

Which of them is right? If these people talked, they would have completely opposite ideas about what makes them happy and what the meaning of life is to fulfill their happiness.

[ecks]

[Oh! It's a logic puzzle!]

C
the meaning of life is to fulfill their happiness and bring themselves joy

[jumpthegun]

That's not quite what I was going for, Ecks. That holds up well for a lot, but some people might find joy in making others suffer. That's certainly not going to be right, is it?

[ecks]

do only some people have a right meaning of life?

[She's getting bogged down in this specific example.]

[jumpthegun]

[John sighs.]

I'd personally argue 'yes,' but there are others who'd argue no. Let's take a less extreme example. Someone might think the meaning of life is to collect the most bottles and hoard them somewhere. To me, that sounds like a ridiculous purpose to have. It doesn't help them, it doesn't help the world. It might make them happy, but it's ultimately pointless and unproductive.

Someone else might say that's a perfectly legitimate purpose and if they find meaning for their life there, I shouldn't judge or try to help them find something different and what I would consider better.

[ecks]

this is not becoming less confusing
this is becoming more confusing
there must be a correct answer

[She's still not on board with this "individual truths" thing. Probably won't be for a long time.]

is the answer that there is no meaning of life?