9 ms·

Plato Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug

112 points by fern12 9y ago

hnthrwawy566 9y ago
The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it. I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in a very real way. >After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species? Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Why are you so sure?
- projektir 9y ago
  I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing... I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people (significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK, yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their philosophies and high influence from outside. > Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless of how much of a "great thinker" you are. This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense, "fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated. The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a different question.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    On the other hand, we also live in a crazy extreme environment today compared to olde times. We have better sanitation and life expectancy, but also way more exposure to things like lead, diesel fumes, radiation, environmental pollutants magnified through the foodchain... I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. And how much mercury and DDT was in the fish they ate? How many pharmaceuticals in their runoff water?
    - vacri 9y ago
      > I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. How many modern American cities have smouldering nuclear landfill fires under them?
      - leggomylibro 9y ago
        Only one that I know of, but that's still probably more than ancient Greece. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-subterranean-fire-in-a-mountain-of-trash/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-su... It's an interesting bit of trivia that St. Louis had one of the nation's first cyclotrons used for atomic research, but radiation is the gift that keeps on giving. We're more or less stuck with it now, though; too bad we aren't using more for energy. Why, my pops has stories of scrubbin' the hot room floor what'd raise your hairs...of course, that was back on the East coast. Grandpop always was fond of hands-on lessons. Well. Hands-on lessons, ignoring the IRS, and losing his company's license to produce radioactive material. Still, he considered it a win when he was still cogent because 'those boys at oak ridge saved him from the draft.' Can't argue with that. Or at least, I sure as hell can't, especially since my other grandpop served in the Pacific theater and was very quiet about the whole thing besides using certain, uh, racial epithets to his death. Let's all stop and appreciate the lack of serious global conflict around now, yeah?
  - hnthrwawy566 9y ago
    > At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement. So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  ... When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came ... The trouble is that we are more enlightened.
  - dasil003 9y ago
    Scientific knowledge != enlightenment.
    - sverige 9y ago
      I would argue that ancient peoples were much more intelligent on average than people today. It is obvious to me that even in the past few generations, each subsequent generation has been less intelligent, more narrow minded, and overall less robust than previous generations. I personally knew many people who were born in the 19th century and I could not say that my generation is in any way superior to theirs. We may know more stuff, but we are far less wise. Reading ancient authors only reinforces how simple and unenlightened we are compared to them. It is a very unpopular view, of course, because it is threatening to the self-esteem of my contemporaries who believe that all of the social changes and scientific advances in the past century or so have put us on the cusp of some permanent state of enlightenment. I am sure that we are rather on the cusp of great disaster. No one really likes to think that, but the evidence is pretty obvious in my opinion.
      - Retra 9y ago
        An argument made on such vague terms is easy to make. You never qualified how you measure intelligence, nor which people you're talking about (those who in the past who were wealthy and well-written enough to leave records vs the 'common clay' of today,) nor have you said which cultures you believe to be on the cusp of collapse, nor any prediction of the cause of such obviously imminent disaster. And of course, no proof that it would be a disaster, rather than a mere rebirth. So I would argue that the provider of such an unenlightened exposition is not in a position to be giving such analysis in a meaningful way.
      - 9y ago
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Another trope that bothers me, along similar lines, also appears in this article: that people have always had anxieties about the changing ways and attitudes of the youth, and so we should dismiss such fears. In fact, ancient civilizations did fall, sometimes because their people lost the will and confidence needed to maintain the institutions that they inherited. Because they became decadent in their abundance and abandoned the virtues that created their fortunes in the first place.
- vacri 9y ago
  > When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us We're not necessarily smarter (native intellect) but we are a shitload more enlightened (educated, experienced). In Plato's time, only the absolute social elite could converse in this manner, whereas now we have much broader and deeper knowledge available (and discussed) on pretty much every aspect of life that is common between our times. Don't fall into the trap of deifying past thinkers; they were humans too. Yes, we can learn lessons from them, but our populace as a whole is more enlightened than the populace as a whole in Plato's time. One simple example is egalitarianism; while not perfect now, Greek democracies were only democratic for elite men. Sucks to be you if you're a slave or a woman because... um... that's just the way it is? If you're going to be making theory, you should work from solid foundations - the ancient Greeks had some really wrong ideas about the role of the physical heart and brain of a human, and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human heat, for example.
  - hnthrwawy566 9y ago
    > they were humans too Yes they were. However I'll put more stock in the ideas that have survived and been promulgated throughout the ages than I would, for example, some poorly thought out perspective from some random guy on HN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect > and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human hea No one today would seriously suggest that a low-fat high-carb diet was healthy and yet that's exactly what was advocated by the medical profession up until about 5 years ago.
    - vacri 9y ago
      Well, you're succumbing to survivorship bias there, because there were plenty of poorly thought-out perspectives from yesteryear that haven't survived. Claiming that the ancients were more enlightened than us moderns because a few of their ideas survived is simply not rational. And it's certainly stacking the deck to compare the apex thinker of antiquity to a non-apex thinker today.
      - 9y ago
- lmm 9y ago
  > Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Yes, very much so. > Why are you so sure? Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. And because I have explanations for why these ancient thinkers thought the way they did - the kind of sexual behaviour that made sense in a world without modern medicine is very different from what makes sense with it.
  - hnthrwawy566 9y ago
    > Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. The experience of one person over not even a full lifetime? That's just laughably dumb. I don't mean to be rude but I also don't know what to say to that.
dvt 9y ago
> Studies have shown that psychological issues, often caused by pain or unmet needs in childhood, are far more likely to lead to an addiction to something than that something (whatever it is—heroin, sugar, sex) is likely to cause an addiction in a psychologically healthy, happy person who has the skills to cope with the stuff life constantly throws at us. Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive (I wonder why/if Dr. Andrew Doan would disagree). With that said, I think the correct headline would have been "Socrates Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug." And, because it's Socrates we're talking about here, we can't really take him seriously. I'm not sure about him being the Ur-millennial, but he was certainly the Ur-troll. The author herself admits she's being a bit facetious (w.r.t. books), but I think the distinction is important. > Plato probably would have approved of Waldorf- or oppressive-Religious-homeschooling-style extremism—hell, he kind of invented it—and if we want to follow in his great tradition we should not only ban all screens but also all forms of writing and most literature. This is really pushing it. Quoting from his "Republic" is kind of iffy because it's hard to tell whether or not the book is meant to be serious, sarcastic, taken literally, or taken in semi-jest. Interpretations vary wildly. Either way, the article was a great read and I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that instead of demonizing substances (or video games), we need to fix the underlying psychological issues.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive It's more than nice. Studies have shown that many intuitive notions are wrong. So it's really important to test the intuition.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Socrates would want us to not take anyone's word for it, including Socrates'. Plato might want the same.
SFjulie1 9y ago
Plato was going to every tables (banquet) where rich men were filling his plates in hope he would use his sharp tongue to advocate the idea that democracy (people rule) sucked and that only the best (aristos)/wealthiest should rule. Plato being such a venal corrupted dickhead if he were alive, I am pretty sure he would convince us to stay plugged with the latest iphone, trust google, and vote zuckenberg If plato were alive he would have a WS/SV sponsored reality show
icanhackit 9y ago
A verbose way of saying don't blame the drug, blame the shortcomings or trauma in one's life that created the impulse to abuse a drug. The article also touches on how something pleasurable doesn't become a drug until it becomes an unhealthy addiction - as long as it's used or enjoyed in moderation/with restraint, it's a medicine or tool. If I could write that well I'd probably flaunt it, so no disrespect to the author.
davidscolgan 9y ago
In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games. Consider how some people get much more satisfaction out of being in a World of Warcraft guild compared to going to their public school. There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game, and there are actually people I once met at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) who are trying to do that. On the other hand, from the perspective of evolution, the human brain did not evolve in the presence of things like high fructose corn syrup and infinite Facebook feeds, and so it can require unnatural efforts to use moderation, especially if someone is predisposed to be particularly addicted to something. So, maybe like most things, the issue is more nuanced than just "video games are horrible" and "video games are completely good."
- visarga 9y ago
  As we're entering a risky new era in technology, it might be that same technology that would provide us with a cure.
  - davidscolgan 9y ago
    I am optimistic that that will turn out to be true. Some are pessimistic about, say, how there are so many different prescription drugs out there that now no doctor can realistically know how all of the interactions work. But, in the case of something like the IBM Watson computer, it (at least theoretically as it is pitched) can examine literally all the combinations and make it work. My current running theory is that the world will become really great if we can just get to that point before everything explodes.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  >There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game Of course there is: real life has real consequences like failing school or poverty or death if you mess up too badly. Part of the fun of video games is that you can do exciting things without actual risk.
ArialAnemone 9y ago
One problem is that we put our ancient brains in the midst of unparalleled stimuli in the public sphere. I can guarantee (aka I would put down a bet) a city person has far more stress than a suburb/country person on the basis density of stimuli. This is ignoring other urban stressors which pack on more stress. I would be addicted to "something" just to drown out a sonic and visual tsunami that holds none of the calming charm of birds chirping. Not only a sensory tsunami but a social one where people have to remember more names and get used to either being excessively quiet or excessively histrionic. So video games it is then. And then when mega AI complexes are being built, we can train loyalty and skills by submerging human resources into pedagogical simulations which compress a lifetime, of feeling, judgement, friendship, and morality, into a short RL time span. And then we shall be spat out by that video game, perfected for the purpose of another video game (supporting your national/global AI complex). And we shall not complain because we shall see the most precious things destroyed in that simulation. By other national-AI complexes. Loyalty not only as face but burned into the minds of citizens. Of course I'd be pissed off if I knew this universe was a simulation for the purposes written above...
xchip 9y ago
Except that the guy in the picture of the article is Socrates.
unlmtd1 9y ago
Plato would be writing code today.
kfk 9y ago
So far I’ve connected this blue-screens-of-death fear-mongering to technophobia Writing style today in English speaking countries feels a bit baroque and over-decorated.
doctorstupid 9y ago
So we should allow children addictive substances and blame them when unable to control themselves?
mrdirt 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk
danhess68 9y ago
Plato was a fascist.

112 points by fern12 9y ago

The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it. I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in a very real way. >After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species? Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Why are you so sure?

projektir 9y ago
I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing... I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people (significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK, yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their philosophies and high influence from outside. > Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless of how much of a "great thinker" you are. This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense, "fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated. The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a different question.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  On the other hand, we also live in a crazy extreme environment today compared to olde times. We have better sanitation and life expectancy, but also way more exposure to things like lead, diesel fumes, radiation, environmental pollutants magnified through the foodchain... I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. And how much mercury and DDT was in the fish they ate? How many pharmaceuticals in their runoff water?
  - vacri 9y ago
    > I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. How many modern American cities have smouldering nuclear landfill fires under them?
    - leggomylibro 9y ago
      Only one that I know of, but that's still probably more than ancient Greece. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-subterranean-fire-in-a-mountain-of-trash/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-su... It's an interesting bit of trivia that St. Louis had one of the nation's first cyclotrons used for atomic research, but radiation is the gift that keeps on giving. We're more or less stuck with it now, though; too bad we aren't using more for energy. Why, my pops has stories of scrubbin' the hot room floor what'd raise your hairs...of course, that was back on the East coast. Grandpop always was fond of hands-on lessons. Well. Hands-on lessons, ignoring the IRS, and losing his company's license to produce radioactive material. Still, he considered it a win when he was still cogent because 'those boys at oak ridge saved him from the draft.' Can't argue with that. Or at least, I sure as hell can't, especially since my other grandpop served in the Pacific theater and was very quiet about the whole thing besides using certain, uh, racial epithets to his death. Let's all stop and appreciate the lack of serious global conflict around now, yeah?
- hnthrwawy566 9y ago
  > At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement. So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
... When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came ... The trouble is that we are more enlightened.
- dasil003 9y ago
  Scientific knowledge != enlightenment.
  - sverige 9y ago
    I would argue that ancient peoples were much more intelligent on average than people today. It is obvious to me that even in the past few generations, each subsequent generation has been less intelligent, more narrow minded, and overall less robust than previous generations. I personally knew many people who were born in the 19th century and I could not say that my generation is in any way superior to theirs. We may know more stuff, but we are far less wise. Reading ancient authors only reinforces how simple and unenlightened we are compared to them. It is a very unpopular view, of course, because it is threatening to the self-esteem of my contemporaries who believe that all of the social changes and scientific advances in the past century or so have put us on the cusp of some permanent state of enlightenment. I am sure that we are rather on the cusp of great disaster. No one really likes to think that, but the evidence is pretty obvious in my opinion.
    - Retra 9y ago
      An argument made on such vague terms is easy to make. You never qualified how you measure intelligence, nor which people you're talking about (those who in the past who were wealthy and well-written enough to leave records vs the 'common clay' of today,) nor have you said which cultures you believe to be on the cusp of collapse, nor any prediction of the cause of such obviously imminent disaster. And of course, no proof that it would be a disaster, rather than a mere rebirth. So I would argue that the provider of such an unenlightened exposition is not in a position to be giving such analysis in a meaningful way.
    - 9y ago
marcoperaza 9y ago
Another trope that bothers me, along similar lines, also appears in this article: that people have always had anxieties about the changing ways and attitudes of the youth, and so we should dismiss such fears. In fact, ancient civilizations did fall, sometimes because their people lost the will and confidence needed to maintain the institutions that they inherited. Because they became decadent in their abundance and abandoned the virtues that created their fortunes in the first place.
vacri 9y ago
> When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us We're not necessarily smarter (native intellect) but we are a shitload more enlightened (educated, experienced). In Plato's time, only the absolute social elite could converse in this manner, whereas now we have much broader and deeper knowledge available (and discussed) on pretty much every aspect of life that is common between our times. Don't fall into the trap of deifying past thinkers; they were humans too. Yes, we can learn lessons from them, but our populace as a whole is more enlightened than the populace as a whole in Plato's time. One simple example is egalitarianism; while not perfect now, Greek democracies were only democratic for elite men. Sucks to be you if you're a slave or a woman because... um... that's just the way it is? If you're going to be making theory, you should work from solid foundations - the ancient Greeks had some really wrong ideas about the role of the physical heart and brain of a human, and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human heat, for example.
- hnthrwawy566 9y ago
  > they were humans too Yes they were. However I'll put more stock in the ideas that have survived and been promulgated throughout the ages than I would, for example, some poorly thought out perspective from some random guy on HN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect > and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human hea No one today would seriously suggest that a low-fat high-carb diet was healthy and yet that's exactly what was advocated by the medical profession up until about 5 years ago.
  - vacri 9y ago
    Well, you're succumbing to survivorship bias there, because there were plenty of poorly thought-out perspectives from yesteryear that haven't survived. Claiming that the ancients were more enlightened than us moderns because a few of their ideas survived is simply not rational. And it's certainly stacking the deck to compare the apex thinker of antiquity to a non-apex thinker today.
    - 9y ago
lmm 9y ago
> Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Yes, very much so. > Why are you so sure? Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. And because I have explanations for why these ancient thinkers thought the way they did - the kind of sexual behaviour that made sense in a world without modern medicine is very different from what makes sense with it.
- hnthrwawy566 9y ago
  > Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. The experience of one person over not even a full lifetime? That's just laughably dumb. I don't mean to be rude but I also don't know what to say to that.

dvt 9y ago

> Studies have shown that psychological issues, often caused by pain or unmet needs in childhood, are far more likely to lead to an addiction to something than that something (whatever it is—heroin, sugar, sex) is likely to cause an addiction in a psychologically healthy, happy person who has the skills to cope with the stuff life constantly throws at us. Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive (I wonder why/if Dr. Andrew Doan would disagree). With that said, I think the correct headline would have been "Socrates Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug." And, because it's Socrates we're talking about here, we can't really take him seriously. I'm not sure about him being the Ur-millennial, but he was certainly the Ur-troll. The author herself admits she's being a bit facetious (w.r.t. books), but I think the distinction is important. > Plato probably would have approved of Waldorf- or oppressive-Religious-homeschooling-style extremism—hell, he kind of invented it—and if we want to follow in his great tradition we should not only ban all screens but also all forms of writing and most literature. This is really pushing it. Quoting from his "Republic" is kind of iffy because it's hard to tell whether or not the book is meant to be serious, sarcastic, taken literally, or taken in semi-jest. Interpretations vary wildly. Either way, the article was a great read and I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that instead of demonizing substances (or video games), we need to fix the underlying psychological issues.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive It's more than nice. Studies have shown that many intuitive notions are wrong. So it's really important to test the intuition.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Socrates would want us to not take anyone's word for it, including Socrates'. Plato might want the same.

SFjulie1 9y ago

Plato was going to every tables (banquet) where rich men were filling his plates in hope he would use his sharp tongue to advocate the idea that democracy (people rule) sucked and that only the best (aristos)/wealthiest should rule. Plato being such a venal corrupted dickhead if he were alive, I am pretty sure he would convince us to stay plugged with the latest iphone, trust google, and vote zuckenberg If plato were alive he would have a WS/SV sponsored reality show

icanhackit 9y ago

A verbose way of saying don't blame the drug, blame the shortcomings or trauma in one's life that created the impulse to abuse a drug. The article also touches on how something pleasurable doesn't become a drug until it becomes an unhealthy addiction - as long as it's used or enjoyed in moderation/with restraint, it's a medicine or tool. If I could write that well I'd probably flaunt it, so no disrespect to the author.

davidscolgan 9y ago

In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games. Consider how some people get much more satisfaction out of being in a World of Warcraft guild compared to going to their public school. There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game, and there are actually people I once met at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) who are trying to do that. On the other hand, from the perspective of evolution, the human brain did not evolve in the presence of things like high fructose corn syrup and infinite Facebook feeds, and so it can require unnatural efforts to use moderation, especially if someone is predisposed to be particularly addicted to something. So, maybe like most things, the issue is more nuanced than just "video games are horrible" and "video games are completely good."

visarga 9y ago
As we're entering a risky new era in technology, it might be that same technology that would provide us with a cure.
- davidscolgan 9y ago
  I am optimistic that that will turn out to be true. Some are pessimistic about, say, how there are so many different prescription drugs out there that now no doctor can realistically know how all of the interactions work. But, in the case of something like the IBM Watson computer, it (at least theoretically as it is pitched) can examine literally all the combinations and make it work. My current running theory is that the world will become really great if we can just get to that point before everything explodes.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game Of course there is: real life has real consequences like failing school or poverty or death if you mess up too badly. Part of the fun of video games is that you can do exciting things without actual risk.

ArialAnemone 9y ago

One problem is that we put our ancient brains in the midst of unparalleled stimuli in the public sphere. I can guarantee (aka I would put down a bet) a city person has far more stress than a suburb/country person on the basis density of stimuli. This is ignoring other urban stressors which pack on more stress. I would be addicted to "something" just to drown out a sonic and visual tsunami that holds none of the calming charm of birds chirping. Not only a sensory tsunami but a social one where people have to remember more names and get used to either being excessively quiet or excessively histrionic. So video games it is then. And then when mega AI complexes are being built, we can train loyalty and skills by submerging human resources into pedagogical simulations which compress a lifetime, of feeling, judgement, friendship, and morality, into a short RL time span. And then we shall be spat out by that video game, perfected for the purpose of another video game (supporting your national/global AI complex). And we shall not complain because we shall see the most precious things destroyed in that simulation. By other national-AI complexes. Loyalty not only as face but burned into the minds of citizens. Of course I'd be pissed off if I knew this universe was a simulation for the purposes written above...

xchip 9y ago

Except that the guy in the picture of the article is Socrates.

unlmtd1 9y ago

Plato would be writing code today.

kfk 9y ago

So far I’ve connected this blue-screens-of-death fear-mongering to technophobia Writing style today in English speaking countries feels a bit baroque and over-decorated.

doctorstupid 9y ago

So we should allow children addictive substances and blame them when unable to control themselves?

mrdirt 9y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk

danhess68 9y ago

Plato was a fascist.