3 ms·

You absolutely have a point- and yes it opposes the other. The other point is valid from a scientific perspective though. I highly recommend you read Norbert

You absolutely have a point- and yes it opposes the other. The other point is valid from a scientific perspective though. I highly recommend you read Norbert Weiners "Cybernetics the human use of human beings" to be able to grapple with the dualism at play. In particular he discusses the manichaean vs augustinian version of evil. He could not reconcile the two but reflecting on the general ways that information leads to effects, and the ontological conflict between "we have free will so its your fault you are oppressed" vs "its not your fault it was engineered to oppress you" - the problem is dual. Social media platforms are giant algorithmic feedback engines creating the most reliable way for their regular users to fulfill their neuro-chemical and social needs. That these people cannot find better information in their mediasphere means that we need to encourage people and remind them of their agency - yes - but we cannot leave it at "words of encouragement" when the other end is "massive highly personalized feedback loop of all the people you miss seeing"

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Thanks for the recommendation. It looks very interesting based on the summary. Weiners commentary on learning seems to echo my own opinions, which I go into this is a sibling thread with netizen-936824. I think much of the problem with duality dissolves once you eliminate the concept of the soul or free will. People tend to ignore the fact that the individual still exists as an information processing agent that takes actions, even if you remove free will. If a program fails to provide the desired output when given an input, it is neither the input or that code that is to blame, but an incompatibility between the input and code that is at fault. You it is possible to get the desired outcome by modifying either, or more likely both. I'm sure I am overlooking some implications or counterpoints, so I look forward to reading your suggestion.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Thanks for the recommendation. It looks very interesting based on the summary. Weiners commentary on learning seems to echo my own opinions, which I go into this is a sibling thread with netizen-936824. I think much of the problem with duality dissolves once you eliminate the concept of the soul or free will. People tend to ignore the fact that the individual still exists as an information processing agent that takes actions, even if you remove free will. If a program fails to provide the desired output when given an input, it is neither the input or that code that is to blame, but an incompatibility between the input and code that is at fault. You it is possible to get the desired outcome by modifying either, or more likely both. I'm sure I am overlooking some implications or counterpoints, so I look forward to reading your suggestion.