3 ms·

Most people think information is transmitted from source to receiver. This is actually wrong. What happens is the information is creatively formed in the mind

Most people think information is transmitted from source to receiver. This is actually wrong. What happens is the information is creatively formed in the mind of the receiver, by the receiver, in all cases. In other words, people form an explanation for the observation in their minds and judge it compared to other competing explanations. So instead of the post-truth, doom-and-gloom world that you fear, another possible outcome is that people get better at forming or identifying good explanatory knowledge. In other words, the bar for what you call truth actually goes up and people get smarter. An example of this happening would be door-to-door sales people. They basically no longer exist. Because people learned not to answer the door when a random person knocks. The old explanation “someone I want to talk to is here to see me” got replaced with a new better explanation of “some time wasting stranger is probably at the door.”

beedeebeedee 3y ago
That is an optimistic view, which I appreciate. The only issue I have is that I think we will need to mobilize as a culture to embrace it, in order for it to succeed. I don't think it is as simple as replacing one explanation with another (like your door-to-door salesman example) because it is such an open-ended problem. I think it is more like completing the Enlightenment as conceived by Kant and others. I think we could do it (i.e., philosophy classes beginning in elementary school, etc), but it would be tough to convince people to participate. It is hard, mind-bending, solitary work that is inherently alienating, which most people avoid. Additionally, there is also the inherent contradiction in developing your own independent mind by order of the government or teachers, as well as a host of other paradoxes. Maybe the best route is to try to make philosophy popular? Use social behavior for people to be attracted to it for the wrong reasons, but hope that a sizeable part of the population end up taking it seriously? And that sizeable chunk is enough to influence the group? I have no idea, but I like your comment and hope there is a silver-lining that we become deeper and more thoughtful people.

beedeebeedee 3y ago

That is an optimistic view, which I appreciate. The only issue I have is that I think we will need to mobilize as a culture to embrace it, in order for it to succeed. I don't think it is as simple as replacing one explanation with another (like your door-to-door salesman example) because it is such an open-ended problem. I think it is more like completing the Enlightenment as conceived by Kant and others. I think we could do it (i.e., philosophy classes beginning in elementary school, etc), but it would be tough to convince people to participate. It is hard, mind-bending, solitary work that is inherently alienating, which most people avoid. Additionally, there is also the inherent contradiction in developing your own independent mind by order of the government or teachers, as well as a host of other paradoxes. Maybe the best route is to try to make philosophy popular? Use social behavior for people to be attracted to it for the wrong reasons, but hope that a sizeable part of the population end up taking it seriously? And that sizeable chunk is enough to influence the group? I have no idea, but I like your comment and hope there is a silver-lining that we become deeper and more thoughtful people.