A reflexive environment is one where everybody has to talk about a certain thing. That thing is going to be very polarizing, and there are either going to be one, or two, right ways to talk about it. Usually they're going to be diametrically opposed to one another, and that means it's a dialectical weapon.
When George Soros famously shorted the the pound sterling in like '92 or whatever, which led to him writing "The Alchemy of Finance" where he said that "Alchemy is not interested in truth like the scientific method, it's interested in operational success." The method he said that they used to do the Alchemy of Finance was reflexivity. The idea is that you start jinning up an idea and make the idea become true because everybody starts talking about it and believing it in a particular way. So "the current thing" takes place in a reflexive environment (often Social Media).
...or to generate "clicks"?
h/t - Woodsterman
The Goal of reflexivity is to create a viral emotional state for "the current thing".
a deliberately provocative or off-topic comment posted on social media, typically in order to upset others or distract from the main conversation.
For as George Soros said in "The Alchemy of Finance"... "Alchemy is not interested in truth like the scientific method, it's interested in operational success."
85 comments:
Nothing new under the Moon.
What sophists was doing in Ancient Greece?
What religious prophets and preachers was doing in middle ages?
What press/propaganda did all of the time since its inception, ahh?
...shift the Overton Window....
:-)
It shifting all of the time anyway.
It helps to have "Grand Narratives"...
...shared ideologies.
...shared genes. ;-)
Means... that not very obvious idea -- that we have COMMON genes with everything that is living on the Earth.
To the last miserly microbe. ;-)
Indeed.
...sometimes you really know how to "express" yourself.
...are we speaking the same "language"?
I don't think I have *correct* Theory of Mind of yours.
Likewise, I think the same with you.
But... that is what make it interesting, isn't it?
PS Anyway, I cannot claim that I have head (non-trivial) theory of mind before...
To that question above.
It's same as with Climate Cha-a-a-ange. ;-)
It is obvious that we people grown into force of a scale of a planet.
But.
How much??? To what extent it influence processes?
Another word.
How much that "Grand Narratives" controlled by us. And how much WE controlled by em? ;-)
That is what Lem was suspicious of.
That's why he is philosopher.
And Zizek -- not. ;-P
I disagree with the last...
context.
Welcome to Trantor!
...and Arcadia 234!
\\I disagree with the last...
That was a taunt, from my side... of course.
But.
I have had philosophy course... in university. Are you? ;-)
And that... just virtual reality fata-morganas.
Nope. Never had a single philosophy class at University (unless "System's Management" or "Marine Engineering" is considered philosophy).
Auto-Didact... switching from "History" to "Philosophy" thanks to a book by an historian. Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy"
That's when I switched to "primary sources" and reading "chronologically". So that I might try (and fail) to discern origins out of differences.
Yep.
There is something that not written... and only comes through face-to-face communication.
PS Maybe that is the problem behind my unsuccessful tryes to present my ideas...
No doubt.
Jowett summary of Plato's, "Phaedrus"
Enough of the art of speaking; let us now proceed to consider the true use of writing. There is an old Egyptian tale of Theuth, the inventor of writing, showing his invention to the god Thamus, who told him that he would only spoil men's memories and take away their understandings. From this tale, of which young Athens will probably make fun, may be gathered the lesson that writing is inferior to speech. For it is like a picture, which can give no answer to a question, and has only a deceitful likeness of a living creature. It has no power of adaptation, but uses the same words for all. It is not a legitimate son of knowledge, but a bastard, and when an attack is made upon this bastard neither parent nor anyone else is there to defend it. The husbandman will not seriously incline to sow his seed in such a hot-bed or garden of Adonis; he will rather sow in the natural soil of the human soul which has depth of earth; and he will anticipate the inner growth of the mind, by writing only, if at all, as a remedy against old age. The natural process will be far nobler, and will bring forth fruit in the minds of others as well as in his own.
The conclusion of the whole matter is just this,—that until a man knows the truth, and the manner of adapting the truth to the natures of other men, he cannot be a good orator; also, that the living is better than the written word, and that the principles of justice and truth when delivered by word of mouth are the legitimate offspring of a man's own bosom, and their lawful descendants take up their abode in others. Such an orator as he is who is possessed of them, you and I would fain become. And to all composers in the world, poets, orators, legislators, we hereby announce that if their compositions are based upon these principles, then they are not only poets, orators, legislators, but philosophers. All others are mere flatterers and putters together of words. This is the message which Phaedrus undertakes to carry to Lysias from the local deities, and Socrates himself will carry a similar message to his favourite Isocrates, whose future distinction as a great rhetorician he prophesies. The heat of the day has passed, and after offering up a prayer to Pan and the nymphs, Socrates and Phaedrus depart.
I'll soon learn it by heart... such excerpts.
But will it all me to grok it? (shy)
Well... I prefer Lem's phrases.
Short. And to the point.
Like that about using organ for playing... even if people will start to think about church. ;-)
Learn by heart?
Naaaaaah. Google it. And then shame yourself when the Google search doesn't return what you were looking for. Then curse the algorithms!
For programmer... it would lead in wrong way -- back to programmer. ;-P
Did you saw many doctors... who curse doctors?
Lawyers who curse lawyers? ;-)
And etc.
Know many doctors who would seek out the most incompetent doctor to perform heart surgery on himself? That's where we are headed with internet censorship.
We need a new ARPANET without any rubes.
\\We need a new ARPANET without any rubes.
If every time I hear from programmer about "let's make our own internet" I would have 1$...
Well, some of them DO propose a thing... and even some of em working, but...
You heard about onion? and "secure browser Tor"? For example. (no, never used it, just BTW)
Onion? Yes, I heard about Tor (Snowden). I don't care if anybody knows me browsing or eavesdrops. I just want "access" to all the information, not just the censored stuff. And that window is closing fast.
Do you know about buffering? ;-)
It's all stored in buffers somewhere? If so, it's long been over-written.
Well... %)
@@
Well... there is DailyMail... or such other alternatives of You Tube. ;-)
True... but the AIs will scrub it all, soon enough.
Heh... let em try. ;-P
When I was logged into the US gov servers, many conservative sites were filtered out. You'd get a "blocked content" screen.
Soon, we'll ALL have to go through that screen.
Blocks in our heads even bigger... no matter what...
You see... Lem...
oh, I did not recommended to you that text. My bad.
About when "genius constructor" decided to create NEW humans, NEW society or even NEW universe... if it'll be needed.
To FIX once and for all... all that nasty-nasty-wrong things... we keep cursing during our mundane lifelong struggles...
Blocks in our heads even bigger...
Being deliberately built "Psychopolitics". ;P
...ah. Capping the pyramid.
Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.
- Ambrose Bierce
"replace them with others"... capping the pyramid.
\\Being deliberately built "Psychopolitics". ;P
Yep.
By Evolution. And Rules of Physics of this Universe. ;-)
...eh???
...by ALL carrots, no sticks (except "cancellation").
"Yes we Can!" No prohibitions (except complete "cancellation"/ social "death" sentence).
You must be talking about the Great Constructor. His brain dead/ retarded assistant is in charge today. All alchemy, all the time.
I have NO other Universe to you, except... maybe one you could build for yourself... "after becoming smarter", ;-) (Lem... Lem... Lem...)
Here's one for you. Do you think that an AI will ever be able to determine or understand the differences between plain coffee, coffee without cream, and coffee without milk?
Is that what a neuro-morphic computer does? Or an analog quantum computer?
Think you can train one to develop "taste"? ...or better, "good taste"?
...or even better, develop healthy recipe's that taste good?
...cuz my Smellivision is malfunctioning.
...the one in my "subconscious".
:P
...that "laughs" from the energy savings between having to write a joke, and just hear it.
\\Here's one for you. Do you think that an AI will ever be able to determine or understand the differences between plain coffee, coffee without cream, and coffee without milk?
Well... it able to distinguish dogs from cats... they say. ;-P
...but there's an "objective" difference in that. Not a purely subjective one.
Oh... that able to do even microbes... ;-)
why do you think AI will not able to do that?
Remember? Three Laws... ;-)
It won't have "subjectivity".
While it have no body.
A computer isn't a body? It needs "mobility" to solve problems in 3D Space-Time?
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y! ;-)
How will it solve them in "morphological spaces" then? ;)
Ehm???
The ability to rewire and reconfigure its' circuits?
Reprogram its' own "firm"ware?
In humans, we label label the symptoms "hysteria'.
Which unlike firware, are new "circuits" being grown and then "myelinated" (insulated) (through use).
Up to programmer to decide... I think.
Then AI will never become smarter than the human programmers.
Well... is it possible, even? ;-P
Not if they can't control their own "evolution".
Can you? ;-)
Isn't that what we do? We place our "memories" in "books" (cybernetics). Now we have CRISPR and can write new genetic codes directly.
We also take pharmaceutics to express certain genetic proteins and suppress others.
\\Isn't that what we do?
That's pretty much Random Walking...
Not even trial and error loops... like Edison did.
Okay, so YOU can get the NeuraLink...
What for???
Are you proponent of magical thinking? That anything with "neural" must be smart, by definition? ;-)
To plug in "Project Gutenberg", of course! And no need to carry phone... e-mail directly to your cerebellum to be remotely controlled like a cockroach.
We are Borg.
Well... Hoking would be glad... probably.
He'd still be dead.
Ressurected as ChatGPT. ;-P
Computer programs can be "glad"?
You don't believe in "we are created in a form of Creator and are Creators ourself"? ;-)
...ask me again in a hundred years.
And you have a plan to be there? In that happy ever after?
Mope Do you?
Yeah.
Saw it.
Whole series of it.
Well... what they show there as "world without humans"... showed on examples from THIS world. With humans still here.
Me-e-eh.
Cheap tricks.
Post a Comment