Taking someone’s picture and turning it into a deepfake nude and then sharing those picturea, such as the OP, is bad because it violates their consent.
If society didn’t have taboos & shame around nudity, then nobody would mind or care.
I recall a few years ago at work they’d share an online greeting card with an animation of our bosses’ heads plastered on elves performing awkward dances.
No one asked our bosses for consent, they got the email, too.
This wasn’t considered a grave violation.
Just because something’s a grave violation to you in your culture doesn’t make it that in every (possible) culture.
Contrary to your claim, social attitudes are relevant, because they’re the basis of your evaluation.
Can you elaborate on this?
Nature underlies everything or we can model it that way.
You made a point about how thought connects to material action & that social constructs & institutions exist by conventions (realizing shared thought into social-rule driven physical expression).
Thought can be materialized as emergent phenomena of underlying material state.
Shared thought could likewise be materialized as an equivalence class of those material states across physical entities.
In that sense, thought is material phenomena that connects to material phenomena/action, so we’re back to materialism.
In this approach to materialism, all those concepts people carry & social rules can be regarded as physical processes that include their thinking.
We’d be able to observe regularity in these physical processes to identify significant rules they follow.
We might be able to observe evaluation processes to infer judgement & determine which thoughts segments of the population prioritize over others to determine observable outcomes.
In this roundabout way, we recover the social rules people follow & the principles/thoughts in their heads that manifest them.
We’d also understand how the observed people would respond to our input in their society.
We’d be able to account for all the complexity of society like you already do, but with all this extra layer of materialism underneath.
(Like what you’re doing, but with extra steps!)
I’m not claiming this is a great approach, just coherent.
If society didn’t have taboos & shame around nudity, then nobody would mind or care. I recall a few years ago at work they’d share an online greeting card with an animation of our bosses’ heads plastered on elves performing awkward dances. No one asked our bosses for consent, they got the email, too. This wasn’t considered a grave violation.
Just because something’s a grave violation to you in your culture doesn’t make it that in every (possible) culture. Contrary to your claim, social attitudes are relevant, because they’re the basis of your evaluation.
Nature underlies everything or we can model it that way. You made a point about how thought connects to material action & that social constructs & institutions exist by conventions (realizing shared thought into social-rule driven physical expression). Thought can be materialized as emergent phenomena of underlying material state. Shared thought could likewise be materialized as an equivalence class of those material states across physical entities. In that sense, thought is material phenomena that connects to material phenomena/action, so we’re back to materialism.
In this approach to materialism, all those concepts people carry & social rules can be regarded as physical processes that include their thinking. We’d be able to observe regularity in these physical processes to identify significant rules they follow. We might be able to observe evaluation processes to infer judgement & determine which thoughts segments of the population prioritize over others to determine observable outcomes. In this roundabout way, we recover the social rules people follow & the principles/thoughts in their heads that manifest them. We’d also understand how the observed people would respond to our input in their society.
We’d be able to account for all the complexity of society like you already do, but with all this extra layer of materialism underneath. (Like what you’re doing, but with extra steps!) I’m not claiming this is a great approach, just coherent.