3 ms·

Sometime ago was posted here (I think) a pdf with the state of the art on psychology and one of the topics were the qualia and senses. They seemed to agree tha

by xlayn 10y ago

Sometime ago was posted here (I think) a pdf with the state of the art on psychology and one of the topics were the qualia and senses. They seemed to agree that they were interpreted as an electrical signal and didn't have anything to do with the organ itself, as when you see in your dreams. Based on that I disagree with you anything as being processed by the brain affected by tech outside our natural capabilities should qualify as sensory and not cognitive enhancement.... will search for the pdf... right now this just qualify as "expert logic fallacy" update: even when I'm extremely tempted to agree with you... edit2: pdf here http://open-mind.net/collection.pdf http://open-mind.net/collection.pdf

dkarapetyan 10y ago
My point was it is impossible to separate the two in practice. Enhanced sensory input will affect cognition and enhanced cognition will affect sensory inputs. Depending on the kind of sensory enhancement it might lead to impaired cognition but I'm using the colloquial sense of enhancement to mean "making better". You can certainly "enhance" a signal with noise and make it worse.
xlayn 10y ago
Enhance sensory: You can use glasses to enhance your eyes but still take wrong decisions on the data they present to you. Regarding cognition I would say there are only hacks and are as messy as spaghetti over an open heart surgery; the thing is the brain is the result of the two opposing forces that are "more intelligence better tools" and "more intelligence more energy". Check https://www.gwern.net/Drug%20heuristics https://www.gwern.net/Drug%20heuristics incredible post.