meekmind
I tend to think that everything I know represents a thousand things I don't. In other words, there is only so much time in the day or so much space in my brain. If the choice isn't simply binary, as is implied by that original saying, I think it would be preferable to be a "jack of all trades, master of ONE."
Western societies, and probably others, seemed to have this ingrained for quite some time. So much so that people would adopt a name that reflected their mastery (or profession): "Smith", "Cooper", "Fletcher", etc. Obviously, most people through-out history lived in incredible scarcity and consequently had to be somewhat skilled in a variety of things simply to survive. Specialization was the exception for quite some time. It wasn't until technological advancement, widespread usage of labor-saving devices, and later the industrial revolution, that specialization by large numbers of people was feasible (due to the abundance of resources from the efficient production of goods).
I think that consciousness ought to imply some element of choice. A rock cannot choose to get out of the way, nor in any way deliberately respond to sound waves. It is inert.
To me, the ability to establish relationships between things is a consequence ipso facto of the ethical framework required by the physical form. In other words, what we see is limited by evolutionary, genetic, and knowledge constraints. I'm defining intelligence as (g) factor in psychometrics [0] or roughly the upper-bound capacity of an entity to apply it's ethical framework consistently, and/or with any degree of accuracy, and/or across multiple potentially disparate domains of knowledge.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
Consciousness is defined as an entity that has an ethical framework that is subordinated to it's own physical existence, maintaining that existence, and interfacing with other conscious entities as if they also have an ethical framework with similar parameters who are fundamentally no more or less important/capable than itself.
Contrast with non-conscious super-intelligence that lacks physical body (likely distributed). Without a physical/atomic body and sense data it lacks the capacity to empathize/sympathize as conscious entities (that exist within an ethical framework that is subordinated to those limitations/senses) must. It lacks the perspective of a singular, subjective being and must extrapolate our moral/ethical considerations, rather than have them ingrained as key to it's own survival.
Now that I think about it, it's probably not much different than the relationship between a human and God, except that in this case it's: a machine consciousness and a machine god.
To me, the main problem is that humans (at large) have yet to establish/apply a consistent philosophy with which to understand our own moral, ethical, and physical limitations. For the lack of that, I question whether we're capable of programming a machine consciousness (much less a machine god) with a sufficient amount of ethical/moral understanding - since we lack it ourselves (in the aggregate). We can hardly agree on basic premises, or whether humanity itself is even worth having. How can we expect a machine that we make to do what we can't do ourselves? You might say "that's the whole point of making the machine, to do something we can't" but I would argue we have to understand the problem domain first (given we are to program the machine) before we can expect our creations to apply it properly or expand on it in any meaningful way.
"6.4 MILLION CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF FOUR AND SEVENTEEN HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH ADHD. BY HIGH SCHOOL, NEARLY 20% OF ALL BOYS WILL HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH ADHD—A 37% INCREASE SINCE 2003" [0] (CAPS are from article)
"The number of children who have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder—overwhelmingly boys—in the United States has climbed at an astonishing rate over a relatively short period of time." [0]
It is well-known that boys and girls have different tendencies when learning. Boys tend to be tactile/kinesthetic learners, compared to girls who do better with visual/auditory learning. For example, consider how you would teach a child to build a house. A boy would learn the process better by actually building a house, whereas a girl would do better reading about construction methods or seeing blueprints (on average).
I am inclined to to agree with GP and that it is schools. When faced with the aforementioned learning styles: parents, teachers, and administrators struggle to accommodate boys and instead opt to medicate them. It's easier to drug boys when they have difficulties for lack of tactile/kinesthetic learning options.
I will admit that pollutants and the flood of instantly-gratifying entertainment, movies, TV shows, music videos, and porn is not helpful. However, I don't think that is the most fundamental problem. I simply see an educational system that caters to girls at the expense of boys. Further, the boys are confronted by media that portrays them as "skirt-chasers", "metro-sexuals", and "macho-men" and not the "good-hearted, hard-working, and self-sacrificing just trying to take care of their friends and families" men that they really (often) become. [1]
[0] - https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the...
[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/11/14/are-m...
It can't really be because less than 2% of the population isn't feeling included, though Palm Springs is piloting a novel way to solve that problem by incentivizing people to identify as transgender or non-binary. https://news.yahoo.com/california-city-universal-income-tran...
I think the hair-splitting is due to the fact that majority of memes associated with one side or the other are not outright false, but are conditioning people to a particular pre-determined conclusion. In other words, if you're interested in battling mis/dis-information, you have to recognize the over-arching agenda and attack that, not rebut/censor every meme and thought internet randos and robots see fit to post.
“This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” ― T.S. Eliot
I think you misunderstood me. Giving a handful of companies control over the credibility economy is not a solution and is in some ways worse than having no credibility economy at all. These "abuse detection" systems break down when they are perpetrating the abuse. In other words, as central authorities starts choosing who has access to what according to increasingly arbitrary, political, or cultural lines. The problem wasn't really solved because the free and open internet cannot continue to exist under those conditions.
Is it far fetched to assume that a bottom-up system can't also develop a decentralized credibility economy to complement the decentralized network? I think not, and one thing would likely follow the other in due course.
You might ask, how was this problem solved for the normal internet?
The answer is: It was *not* fixed, we just centralized the problem into fewer and fewer hands. Then that created a new problem centralized internet being easily monitored, controlled, censored, etc.
No one needs to explain how to deal with bad actors with a mesh net because there is no basis of comparison for an internet where that problem was ever solved to begin with. The problem they are trying to solve is centralization. If you argue that the biggest risk to the internet is the central controllers _being_ the bad actors, then it's a win. If you argue that there are other bad actors and having a mesh net won't eliminate them, then you just have a really convenient excuse to do nothing while the same bad actors frolic through-out the existing internet fairly unimpeded anyway.
I do not recommend being consistent with that position in other areas of your life otherwise you might quickly find yourself in a jungle, starving and naked. Given that relying on others for shelter, food, or clothing is clearly out of the question!
Also consider: the fundamental parts of a computer are still analog. Hardware bypasses, 3d-printed micro-circuitry, modified components or distributables, who knows? In my estimation, the cat and mouse game will continue for quite some time.
In my humble opinion it should be no surprise that the mere existence of a state itself establishes perverse incentives for corporations to leverage until their power is at least comparable. To that end the state becomes an arm of corporate hegemony and we are left with simple fascism.
What I think confuses the majority of people is that within the left-right paradigm, the current crop of fascists claim to be left-leaning where fascism was understood to be a right-wing ideology. No one asked, but if they did, I would tell them that it's still a far-right ideology, the powers that be are actually far-right, and they use pathological altruism, compassion and politeness (i.e. typical leftism) as a cover for their operations (e.g. "Think of the children")
Every day (to this day) we're getting thousands of requests for images that no longer exist on our CDN (because they were stale/deleted). The CDN normally does not hit the origin machine (where the images are hosted) unless it cannot find the images on the CDN, at which point it queries the origin for the image. Problem was, the image no longer existed on the origin. I didn't expect the origin would receive much traffic, but suddenly it's receiving a ton of traffic.
I was very confused because, at first glance, it looked like I was being attacked by my own CDN provider given the tremendous traffic and the fact that the CDN provider was the only thing allowed to access that box (the origin).
At any rate, I contacted the CDN provider and informed them that thousands of requests that resulted in 404's were taking down my website. They told me there was nothing they could do.
In any case, I managed to wrangle together some new infra to handle it. I don't think whoever was hitting the CDN for those images was malicious. However, it occurred to me that had they been malicious, then they could have just hit random non-existent file-names at a much higher rate and done a lot more damage.
Do they? Nothing is ever _really_ deleted on the good old-fashioned internet either.
We can't have our cake and eat it too. Having a centralized arbiter of truth is more dangerous to the truth than bad people who do bad things.
For example, it is commonly understood that religion and science are always opposed. However, it's rarely ever mentioned that Christian theologians for centuries consistently modified their belief structure to reflect reality as their understanding of reality improved. In other words, quite often if there was a seeming contradiction between doctrine and observable fact, the doctrine was changed, as opposed to ignoring the observable fact.
Obviously there are exceptions to this, like the Inquisition, or other dark periods through history. Religion is not without it's faults, but that is true of any principle around which people organize. The important part, for the materialist, objectivist, or athiest; is recognizing the organizing principles as being somehow useful to people prior to the refinement of the scientific method. I assume that those people gained real material value, and to dispose of what those people believed without extracting and maintaining that value is simply destructive.
> crystallized world views that were prevalent
They were prevalent because they were correct. It has nothing to do with race. By the standards of history, nothing between two civilizations is as well documented as the protracted conflict (14 centuries) between the West and Islam [0]. You might argue that this perspective is biased, and you may be correct, but even critics of that perspective acknowledge that the long chain of historical events and accounts of historical events are undeniable, regardless of what you consider to be their cause.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37938325-sword-and-scimi...
> media literacy may not be enough
I would grant that there is an intelligence distribution in the population and the capacity to acquire critical thinking skills is clamped by something that is largely genetic (and somewhat random), not to mention education or experience. Further, people who are on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum need some way of reasoning about the world even without that capacity. They then must rely on more intelligent people to analyze and synthesize a cohesive perspective that will work for them and their level of interpretation. In other words, I agree that objectively it's not enough for everyone. But still, we certainly ought to educate as many people as possible and certainly the capacity of society to manage a consistent cohesive perspective for those people would increase as well.
> Human brains are reckless
This and your following point about engineers compartmentalizing their thinking ability is hard to refute. However I would say two things on the matter.
1. It's a matter of degrees and having a system which optimizes human development (e.g. parenting, family) to leverage as many developmental windows as possible (on an individual basis) would minimize reckless thinking.
2. At scale, a functioning and diverse media with a healthy amount of honest journalism also minimizes the likelihood that reckless thinking would persist for very long.
> this is a reductive answer
True. It's difficult to know what level of interpretation is appropriate in any context. I agree that there are complex issues and forces in play, however I would argue that after a certain point it is necessary to trim the fat and synthesize a cohesive, if not simplistic, perspective. Western civilization is known for it's ability to do that and maintain much of the original value of a thought. I'm not an oncologist, but there is a vested public interest for oncologists to "spread awareness" and educate people about cancer. We typically don't challenge the oncologist when they make an analogy, don't describe cancer with exactly the correct technical terminology, or unpack every individual aspect of cancer in their explanation.
Your point about ordinary people having an incentive to minimize critical thinking is very true and insightful. None of this occurs in a vacuum, and to some extent there is a degree of personal responsibility to be sure. Personally I am less inclined to lay this problem at the feet of an individual, who in my estimation, was sabotaged for generations by corrupted media and educational institutions. However, I will definitely acknowledge the pendulum of moral responsibility swings in both directions.
> There’s no one single source of this quagmire, and no One Simple Trick that will solve it.
This is true in analysis but not in synthesis. Abuse and predation, in particular against children (primarily perpetrated by parents) is the single biggest and impactful source of this quagmire. The One Simple Trick: peaceful parenting.
By that time, many developmental windows have been missed, a persons personality is already solidified.
University is too late for these fundamentals, which IMHO ought to be taught in primary school. I think we horribly underestimate the ability of children to do this. Which I attribute to the assembly-line education that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
> media literacy just isn't enough
How would we know? It's not really taught. As you pointed out later, it's not just "media literacy," it's "thinking for yourself," "critical thinking," "skepticism," "reasoning."
Very little of that is taught because the educational institutions who would be responsible for teaching it have curriculums that cannot withstand it.
Hand-waving to students that "u shuld do critical thinking" is not sufficient to actually teach critical thinking.
Also our educational institutions totally ignore the distribution of intelligence in the population. The curriculum is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator which does an incredible disservice to high (or even average) intelligence individuals.
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
This is true, to an extent. But, that's what journalism is supposed to solve. Instead of spending 1000 hours researching some issue as an individual, have 100 journalists spend 10 hours researching it and collaborate on the reporting. Sadly, we have very little actual journalism anymore, which I'll explain next..
> people who live on their lies usually have a much stronger incentive
This, I totally agree with.
Journalism has failed because it was bought out by corporate interests who have a vested interest in a particular narrative. If not through advertising, but by buying the media companies directly. Further, if you give a "journalist" a choice between working for 10 hours to tell the truth or working for 1 hour to tell a lie, getting paid the same amount either way, the outcome is obvious.
Moreover, declining educational standards, and especially lack of critical thinking skills, has led to a deadening of the public palette. The market is not incentivizing actual journalism because objectivity is hard, opposes too many special interests, and the public (at large) doesn't have a taste for it.
The only takeaway from this ought to be obvious. We can't rely on the institutions and corporations who created this problem to solve it. Clearly they're leading us to "thought police" and censorship. I think, however, the lights should be turned on and the public at large should get a crash course in critical thinking.
Which one is propaganda? The one you disagree with? The one that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? The one that doesn't fit with your personality profile? Both positions? Neither position? Do we just shut down all thinking on the internet? Who watches the watchers?
A number of things occur to me when I run into articles like this.
1. "Conspiracy theory" is simply the study of illusion, which our society is replete with because..
2. Over-classification and a culture of secrecy by institutional actors who have an "us vs them" mentality who seem so surprised when..
3. People take offense to being talked to like children who "can't handle the truth" and are automatically classified as "one of the them or the enemy" from which the truth is to be withheld
4. People, not having authoritative sources of information to rely on, then speculate attempting to approximate, extrapolate, and backwards engineer the truth. Sure, they can get it wrong, and sometimes really wrong but really, what else would you expect?
5. Like it or not there is a bell curve, or distribution of intelligence in the population. People gravitate towards different levels of interpretation, and I often see arguments like "you can't argue with stupid" without acknowledging the perfectly rational impulse as defined above and that whatever level of interpretation they're using probably wasn't meant for them.