Are Internet discussion forums the answer?

[coberst]

Are Internet discussion forums the answer?

When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

Our sluggish ability to adapt quickly to changes in our environment severely endangers the longevity of the human species: it takes generations for new human science theories to migrate into mass common sense comprehension.

Internet discussion forums are the answer.

What is the question?

How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?

Quotes from The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

[squidmonk3j]

When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.

Awesome Zen Koan.

[Baron Impossible]

I opine that attempted virtual conference on socio-neurophysiological postulations, especially when delivered with confounding impenetrability and reliance on pretentiously esoteric formulaic pseudo-linguistical constructions specifically designed to obscure interpretation of broadly flawed cognition, is comparable in effectiveness and practical benefit to pissing up a stick.

[Zapp!]

I tried to understand this thread, but too many big words made my brain hurt.

[Hyskoa]

Are Internet discussion forums the answer?

When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

Our sluggish ability to adapt quickly to changes in our environment severely endangers the longevity of the human species: it takes generations for new human science theories to migrate into mass common sense comprehension.

Internet discussion forums are the answer.

What is the question?

How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?

Quotes from The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

No.
Next question.

[Katfayheirti]

For some reason I feel drawn to reply to this with an actual, serious answer (perhaps that is the magic of internet forums at work?)

Coburst, I don't think the problem with humanity lies in the public's slow acceptance of scientific theories. It would be great if the public took more of an interest in science, but even turning every lay person into a scientist wouldn't do anything to help with the adaptability of humanity. (I've heard of a certain scientist who postulated that adaptations come from gradual genetic change.....) Scientists themselves are human and are beholden to their own irrational beliefs despite their attempts to remain objective. How long did it take for the scientific community to accept the theory of continental drift despite the strong evidence in its favor? foreeeeeeverrrrrr.

Scientists are really just a cross-section of regular humans who apply the scientific theory in an attempt to objectively obtain information about the world around them, however, being human and of a merely human capacity for comprehension, they will never fully be able to understand the universe. Also, scientific study often requires intense study in a very limited field. Would you have every scientist become an expert in every science?

[Ilaekae]

"How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?"

1. Make sure that everyone learns the difference between magic and science.

2. Have a system built into the interwebz that automatically codes/grades any and all commentary posted from "TRUE" to "Probably the dumbest fuckin' thing I ever heard in my life" with a high degree of accuracy.

[Hookswords]

Ilaekae, one of my goals in life is to shake your hand.

[OmenSpirits]

"How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?"

1. Make sure that everyone learns the difference between magic and science.

2. Have a system built into the interwebz that automatically codes/grades any and all commentary posted from "TRUE" to "Probably the dumbest fuckin' thing I ever heard in my life" with a high degree of accuracy.
I'm laughing really hard right now! :D

[Hamsta]

Think of the lol cats!

If you put "fucking dumbest" on ignore, who knows what hilarity you might miss :P

[Culo]

Are Internet discussion forums the answer?

When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

Our sluggish ability to adapt quickly to changes in our environment severely endangers the longevity of the human species: it takes generations for new human science theories to migrate into mass common sense comprehension.

Internet discussion forums are the answer.

What is the question?

How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?

Quotes from The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio
The answer is 42




.
.

[Cthogua]

Are Internet discussion forums the answer?

When asked about the origin of consciousness it appears to be conventional wisdom to respond, “Language did it”.

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

Our sluggish ability to adapt quickly to changes in our environment severely endangers the longevity of the human species: it takes generations for new human science theories to migrate into mass common sense comprehension.

Internet discussion forums are the answer.

What is the question?

How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the social osmosis of new human science theories?

Quotes from The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

The problem with talking about "science theories" in relation to human conciousness and it's development, is that "science" as it exists now is really a pebble next to the boulder that is the time our conciousness has arguably existed in the form it does now. Basically since biologically "modern" humans appeared 150,000 or so years ago. "Science" as far as it exists today is a creation of the age of enlightenment and the development of the scientific method. The Greeks also developed systems similar to the scientific method, however very rarely were theories actually based on empirical data derived from tests. At that point, and occasionally in between, the line between "science" and "magic" get blurred. Egyptians had what from a functional stand point was fairly advanced "science" however it was viewed, regarded, and treated within the culture as magic. In fact all of the physical sciences have their roots in what used to be considered "magical" traditions. Astronomy developed out of an interest in the stars because of a recognition of their placement in the sky reflecting seasonal changes, Chemistry from Alchemy and the exploration of physical substances, their properties and reactions, architecture and geometrical mathematics from supposed "sacred ratios" and formula. They're often both observations of the world, recording similar information, just assigning it different significance. The alchemical saying, "As below, so above" is a theoretical expression of the exact same idea as fractals, supposedly "discovered" by mathematicians in the 70s. Science is the maturation of magic. So the problem with assuming that the evolution of our consciousness is tied to "science theories" is that they are just a recent expression of a larger trend of environmental observation and theoretical formulation. I'm not talking about "magic" being that lighting is caused by some god being angry...that's myth, that's the made up why. However the why is often irrelevant in the presence of functional utility, the "what". It doesn't matter one bit, in terms of operational use, if I believe that my remote control works by sending infrared signals to a receiver that then translates those signals into a command for the TV to follow, or that if works because a god named Sony blessed it with the ability to communicate with the light box. Either way when I press the channel up button it goes up. This is as far of an understanding of that that 99% of the population requires. If you're a manufacturer or a repair person then more specialized knowledge about the "why" is required, and this is where modern science helps. What's funny is that in utilizing the understanding modern science has brought about, we've achieved "magical" results. In so far as magic is the supposed abilities of "god" to control and manipulate the physical world. We can defibrillate people with stopped hearts and bring them back to life. We can share information between objects with no physical connection. We can wipe out entire cities with a single weapon.

[s.ketch]

Man I love chocolate milk.

[Carl Dobsky]

Do I try to answer this seriously?

*sigh*

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

OK. That's legitimate.

"Our sluggish ability to adapt quickly to changes in our environment severely endangers the longevity of the human species"

That is not legitimate.

The human race has been anything but sluggish in it's ability to adapt. In fact, it has been so successful that other problems have arisen because of this very fact. Little things like over-population and global warming are a direct result of being able to adapt and transit information. In fact, it's the transmission of information that has made the species so adaptable because they are forewarned of existing problems and danger.

So, if anything, internet forums only propagate the spread of information, and hence, the impending disasters brought on by such things as over-population and global warming. Since our fate is ultimately connected to the state of the planet and other such things, we have only one hope-- DESTROY THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[squidmonk3j]

Do I try to answer this seriously?

*sigh*

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

OK. That's legitimate.

I disagree. It's a perfect demonstration of the inherent impossibility of escaping language. Both "consciousness" and consciousness are pr. definition inventions. No description will ever be the thing described.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." The power of the Zen Koan unwittingly posted in the initial post appears to me to be smiling compassionately at the confused and incoherent mess that follows it.

Everything we do and say is an expression of (our) humanity.

[FranciscoShreds]

Man I love chocolate milk.

I disagree, you love strawberry milk. Here's a superscientationmeataphysticularigational (hows that for a big word) graph that shows why. As you can see, your shift in taste have grown and expanded, but you have ultimately decided that strawberry milk is your favorite choice.

Franc~

[s.ketch]

My love for dark, sweet, and creamy beverages is an emergent behavior of my biology. Fate is a chain of nucleic acids and observed behavior. The future of mankind lies in the same void from which it was born. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. So pour a glass of milk and grab the Nesquik. The glass is as full as you want it. Don't question it too much, just enjoy it because it'll be over soon enough.

[coberst]

For some reason I feel drawn to reply to this with an actual, serious answer (perhaps that is the magic of internet forums at work?)

Coburst, I don't think the problem with humanity lies in the public's slow acceptance of scientific theories. It would be great if the public took more of an interest in science, but even turning every lay person into a scientist wouldn't do anything to help with the adaptability of humanity. (I've heard of a certain scientist who postulated that adaptations come from gradual genetic change.....) Scientists themselves are human and are beholden to their own irrational beliefs despite their attempts to remain objective. How long did it take for the scientific community to accept the theory of continental drift despite the strong evidence in its favor? foreeeeeeverrrrrr.

Scientists are really just a cross-section of regular humans who apply the scientific theory in an attempt to objectively obtain information about the world around them, however, being human and of a merely human capacity for comprehension, they will never fully be able to understand the universe. Also, scientific study often requires intense study in a very limited field. Would you have every scientist become an expert in every science?


New theories in the natural sciences are quickly integrated into our society because these theories often lead to new business practices that put money into our pockets. Such is not the case with new discoveries in the human sciences.

New theories in the human sciences often take generations to trickle down to Tom and Jane because Tom and Jane pick up these new ideas normally through a process of social osmosis. Such new theories are not generally taught in our schools.

Our educational system prepares us to become good producers and consumers. However, in the name of efficiency, our educational system leaves us ignorant of many domains of knowledge that are vital to our comprehension of matters that seriously affect the political health of our culture and of the world. Cognitive science is just one example of such a domain.

Popularizer is a word I heard historian William Norton Smith use when discussing American Presidents on C-Span. He did not elaborate significantly but it was apparent to me that he used the word to describe individuals who make popular the theories of authors who write about significant concepts that are seldom disseminated throughout the public educational system.

Mr. Smith and I agree that it is essential that someone carry to the people these vital concepts that I mention. I think of myself as being a popularizer. I try to introduce to my readers new and important ideas recently introduced to the world by the human sciences.

Do you have any desire to be a popularizer?

Isn’t the Internet discussion forum an ideal medium for popularizers to perform their function?

[arttorney]

Everything we do and say is an expression of our humanitySquidmonk3j- You seem to be saying that humans have a monopoly on either consciousness or language, neither of which I am prepared to accept as a premise.


New theories in the natural sciences are quickly integrated into our society because these theories often lead to new business practices that put money into our pockets. Such is not the case with new discoveries in the human sciences.

New theories in the human sciences often take generations to trickle down to Tom and Jane because Tom and Jane pick up these new ideas normally through a process of social osmosis. Such new theories are not generally taught in our schools.This is because science is a process of proving a proposition to a 95% or better likelihood by disproving the opposite proposition in a series of repeatable tests known as experiments. In the "human sciences" the results of tests are not so easily reproducible because humans confabulate, lie, and often say or do what other people told them to. (er ... social osmosis). This eventual reproducibility resulting from "social osmosis" doesn't have anything to do with 95% likelihoods. It has to do with consensus formed by gullibility (popularization). Read Dostoevsky's chapter in The Brothers Karamozov concerning the Grand Inquisitor on the Nature of Man. In summary, humans are not concerned with believing in the truth nearly as much as they are concerned with believing the same thing everybody else does. That is why people want to organize together one day a week and hear a popularizer tell them a bunch of unprovable social osmosis from a pulpit. That is why they don't like the guy who refuses to join them in that exercise.

[squidmonk3j]

arttorney -

I am saying we cannot breach the bounds of our language. Descriptions only exist in language, the thing described exists beyond language. Our concepts of consciousness, causality, cheese, god and science are all attempts at mapping our reality tunnel - and as such are only meaningful as expressions of our humanity. Any attempt at accounting for a non-human reality would obviously be a very human endeavour; any and every human description of non-human consciouness will be just that - a human description.

So, yes - we do have a monopoly on these concepts, their relevance beyond our language simply cannot make any sense.

The opposite position, that our empirical interaction with (and cognitive processing of) "the world" is somehow guaranteed as in tune with some Kantian objective reality, can only be described as faith.

coberst - Where do you get the idea that new theories in the natural sciences are integrated into society from? Commodities that result from such theories might be embraced, but the theories themselves are at best treated as fanciful trivia.

[Goog]

Well coberst, you are a regular world changer! Unfortunately, I believe that far too people enter into internet debates with an open mind, that might hinder your plans for making the world a better, brighter place.

Just for the record, I agree with arttorney.

[arttorney]

I understand and respect what you are saying about definitions and I think we might actually be talking about different things, Squidmonk3j. I have kind of a simple definition, involving awareness of one's surroundings. To me if the rattlesnake appears to be conscious, I presume it is conscious, and I don't reach down there to pick it up. I'm not overly concerned with how the snake defines consciousness. It would bite me without hesitation regardless of my species, and regardless of how I define consciousness, as soon as it is aware that I am within reach. I am kind of goal oriented with personal safety being one of my goals.

[Black Spot]

Texting is closer to speech than the written word, claims academic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5984225/Texting-is-closer-to-speech-than-the-written-word-claims-academic.html)
Sigh.

[XanaChama]

Our educational system prepares us to become good producers and consumers. However, in the name of efficiency, our educational system leaves us ignorant of many domains of knowledge that are vital to our comprehension of matters that seriously affect the political health of our culture and of the world. Cognitive science is just one example of such a domain.

Do you have any desire to be a popularizer?

Isn’t the Internet discussion forum an ideal medium for popularizers to perform their function?

This is a good concept in theory. But for it to be put into practice and be a complete process, it has to be a natural one. Giving knowledge is one thing, but that does not necessarily mean people will accept it or are at the point where they are able to. Internet forums do more to spread ideas, but it does very little to validate them and express them fully.

Also the ideas spread are only limited to select particular groups, and those groups have more control over what ideas are 'popularized' and that controls the discussion, and often not large enough to make any type of social phenomena happen beyond that scale. Most people would grow weary or become fatigued with that version of 'popularization' and return to their basic nature, either because they cannot accept the ideas entirely to make long lasting change or they cannot validate them. Because to act without question of ones own nature is to be irrational, and to do it repeatedly would mean you'd eventually go insane after losing your sense of self-logic... hence why we do not run our lives based on the internet. That is why it is not natural.

Also what is discussed in internet forums is also completely different than what people would spend their time practicing in everyday real life... so it becomes a question as to whether those discussions are ultimately 'distractions' from human nature, because the natural world follows a completely different set of rules. (Wow, that makes me sound like a basement troll)

Therefore, internet forums are more prone to irrational logic and unnatural modes of expression that serve as poor examples. Whereas human behavior can be more completely modified/expressed/perceived in the real world. Social osmosis alone cannot occur only on the internet, it has to be a completed process in real life between self and the rest of the world. Though you and I may be able to relate each other's ideas well enough so that we understand them, without that person to person interaction one cannot teach the other how to practice them, nor can I see those ideas in practice and be more equipped to evaluate them... because to act otherwise is not mentally healthy.

Unless all human beings become intuitive enough to perceive these things over the internet, I doubt internet forums can ever replace the vital benefits of person to person interaction. It is just the way the human is designed.

[coberst]

Unless all human beings become intuitive enough to perceive these things over the internet, I doubt internet forums can ever replace the vital benefits of person to person interaction. It is just the way the human is designed.


Generally person to person communication is idle chit chat; if there is any attempt to learn we just have the blind leading the blind.

Now if we had popularizers who had studied books and developed an understanding of a domain of knowledge and had written about it and had posted it not only could others learn from that but the popularizer would slowly become more sophisticated.

[Goog]

I'm interested, coberst, in what field you have studied to such an extensive point that you can claim to be able to enlighten others on the subject. Judging by your comments in this and the other thread regarding farming techniques in India, I can tell its not economics, politics, or any of the hard sciences. (Philosophy perhaps?)

You see, popularizers seem to me to be fantastic debaters. So much so that they may be able to argue from either side of the subject and still create an impact on the audience's understanding of what is true, and what is not. This concept carries an obvious detrimental consequence which is the direct result of a popularizer discussing a subject which he or she has only a trivial understanding of. A few examples of what I am talking about are: zeitgeist:addendum, the Birther movement, sept. 11 conspiracy theorists, etc. (there are so many). There is simply no alternative to a peer-reviewed paper (I learned that the hard way). Everything else that anyone says, including you (as well as me ;)), should be taken with a gargantuan grain of salt, especially when surfing the internet. Internet discussion forums are not the answer. Anybody can claim to be anyone. (I do admit they have potential though, but in an entirely different context.)

[Ilaekae]

If you want an example of how successfully the human species transfers information through osmosis, snoop on a bunch of young teens out on their first group date. About 20 minutes into it, you'll be banging your head against the wall and wondering how the species has ever survived this long...

[XanaChama]

Generally person to person communication is idle chit chat; if there is any attempt to learn we just have the blind leading the blind.

Now if we had popularizers who had studied books and developed an understanding of a domain of knowledge and had written about it and had posted it not only could others learn from that but the popularizer would slowly become more sophisticated.

What if what our society needs is not written in a book. If we could evolve from information alone, we would all substantially rely more on information for this, because we would gravitate towards them for all life's questions. But there are dozens of self help books and self discovery books out there and not everyone benefits from them. Not everyone benefits from online communication either, in fact some don't feel any need for it. The internet may be prominent in our culture, but most people still don't use internet forums as a means to get information from someone as a medium, most would prefer to get the information directly.

There is more to person to person communication than you think. We need shaping from our environment. There are things that people can pick up from each other in person that they cannot pick up over the internet that aid in the growth process in a way the internet falls far short of. If it was so helpful, we would naturally gravitate towards it... but no, we rely on "idle" conversation for our basic functions in life, in fact some of us crave it constantly to keep us centered.

So for it to be a 'complete' process, you need those things. It does not matter how amazing this 'popularizer' is, and how informed he is, there is still a host of other things that society/individuals has to go through before they can modify their own behavior on that scale. If we could fix one variable and it make everything better, we would've accidentally hit upon it at some point, but we haven't. As fast moving as this society is, we would've done it. But it's a much more complicated process.

[OmenSpirits]

the problem with talking about "science theories" in relation to human conciousness and it's development, is that "science" as it exists now is really a pebble next to the boulder that is the time our conciousness has arguably existed in the form it does now. Basically since biologically "modern" humans appeared 150,000 or so years ago. "science" as far as it exists today is a creation of the age of enlightenment and the development of the scientific method. The greeks also developed systems similar to the scientific method, however very rarely were theories actually based on empirical data derived from tests. At that point, and occasionally in between, the line between "science" and "magic" get blurred. Egyptians had what from a functional stand point was fairly advanced "science" however it was viewed, regarded, and treated within the culture as magic. In fact all of the physical sciences have their roots in what used to be considered "magical" traditions. Astronomy developed out of an interest in the stars because of a recognition of their placement in the sky reflecting seasonal changes, chemistry from alchemy and the exploration of physical substances, their properties and reactions, architecture and geometrical mathematics from supposed "sacred ratios" and formula. They're often both observations of the world, recording similar information, just assigning it different significance. The alchemical saying, "as below, so above" is a theoretical expression of the exact same idea as fractals, supposedly "discovered" by mathematicians in the 70s. Science is the maturation of magic. So the problem with assuming that the evolution of our consciousness is tied to "science theories" is that they are just a recent expression of a larger trend of environmental observation and theoretical formulation. I'm not talking about "magic" being that lighting is caused by some god being angry...that's myth, that's the made up why. However the why is often irrelevant in the presence of functional utility, the "what". It doesn't matter one bit, in terms of operational use, if i believe that my remote control works by sending infrared signals to a receiver that then translates those signals into a command for the tv to follow, or that if works because a god named sony blessed it with the ability to communicate with the light box. Either way when i press the channel up button it goes up. This is as far of an understanding of that that 99% of the population requires. If you're a manufacturer or a repair person then more specialized knowledge about the "why" is required, and this is where modern science helps. What's funny is that in utilizing the understanding modern science has brought about, we've achieved "magical" results. In so far as magic is the supposed abilities of "god" to control and manipulate the physical world. We can defibrillate people with stopped hearts and bring them back to life. We can share information between objects with no physical connection. We can wipe out entire cities with a single weapon.
too many damn words!

[squidmonk3j]

too many damn words!

"Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." - Aleister Crowley

Bettar nao? :)

[Vatsel]

2nd month of summer break can really mess around with people's heads...

[Cthogua]

too many damn words!

Hehe, no doubt. My bad, it was 3 am, I was drunk and had been laid off (along with 90% of the rest of my company) earlier in the day. It was just something else to think about ;)

[s.ketch]

"Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." - Aleister Crowley

I disagree with Crowley. Reality does not bend to the will of a conscious being. We can warp our perception of said reality but that's just a delusion. Delusions can be quite powerful. It can seem like reality, but it isn't.

Also the ends don't justify the means. Just because a cave man said "I wish light would instantly illuminate a dark cave when I walked in" doesn't mean it's some sort of natural evolution of magic to science.

The cave man had the same problem we did, he started a fire, we flip a switch. Of course some things are going to be spookily similar. You had highly religious societies using rudimentary engineering, chemistry, and astronomy, there is going to be some over lap. I know I can't eat Sunday dinner without being asked to thank God for meal he didn't cook so I can imagine trying to build a pyramid for a guy who thought he was God.

Bicameralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)) is a neat concept that could explain the past of human consciousness. This could have happened as recently as 10,000 years ago. If they were delusional, then what are we? What is our future? How can you get any more conscious than what we are now?

[OmenSpirits]

"Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." - Aleister Crowley

Bettar nao? :)
YES!

:D :)

When posting on a forum, these are words to live by:

"Everything must serve the idea. The means used to convey the idea should be the simplest and clear. Just what is required. No extra images. To me this is a universal principle of art. Saying as much as possible with a minimum of means."
-John Huston, Director

[Keeviin]

“I believe it is legitimate to take the phrase “I know” and deduce from it the presence of a nonverbal image of knowing centered on the self that precedes and motivates that verbal phrase…The idea that self and consciousness would emerge after language, and would be a direct construction of language, is not likely to be correct.”

That's not a deduction at all.


Internet discussion forums are the answer.

What is the question?

How can we dramatically enhance the speed of the oversimplification of random stuff we find?


Fixed.