Notices tagged with talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten, page 2
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Friday, 29-Dec-2023 10:08:25 JST
simsa03Not that I'm in any sense knowledgable in that field, but the whole discussion on AI that we had throughut the year 2023 baffles me. As if AI were something totally new. But I don't think it's wrong or overstated to say that every game engine is a form or variant of AI, and that means we live with AI at least since the beginning of the video game era. If we only retrict ourselves to the time when video games started to become a mass cultural phenomenon, then we talk at least of the period since 3d-graphics progamming entered the game genre. Which would be 1982 (with the game "Wayout") and seriously starting in 1990.
So if we indeed already live with AI in form of entertainment-enhancing technology for 33 years, the hoopla about ChatGPT and other AI systems becomes rather unintelligible or: banal. The main reason it creates such excitement today – like it did in the lift-off of video games 33 years ago – is that it enables a breakthrough in experience on the level of the individual person.
Like 33 years ago individual people ("gamers") could immerse in sensory interactions on their own (as well as in groups), the same seems to happen today: Everyone can have ChatGPT and other AI systems write something for you or make an animation for you (text-to-video). The "societal" implications, the implications for economies, technology, and capitalism at large, are minor in comparison to what "AI as experience" creates in the individual person. But again: Nothing (totally) new here, just more of the same stuff.
Random thought: AI is intelligent in the same way the steam powered looms the Luddites broke were skilled, and are deployed to the same purpose. To reduce intelligence to economy, skill to rote algorithms, and humans to second string automatons. #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten#AI#luddites
In 1951 the experiments showed that in about 35% of responses a test person sided with the main (actor) group in giving the wrong answer although the test person knew it was the wrong answer.
This is seen as an example how conformity puts pressure on individual persons.
An important part of the setting is that before the actor group started to give wrong answers there had been three rounds of questions in which the actor group together with the test person gave the correct answer. Only after the thrird round did the actor group start "acting weirdly" to which the test person conformed in about 35% of all cases.
What the accounts in WP & EB omit is that there *first* had been a setting of *trust* ("we share the the same perception") which was *then* altered and "abused". Had the actor group acted "weirdly" (in the perception of the test person) right from the start, the amount of cases in which the test person still agreed to the actor group wrong answer would have been far lower than 35%.
Thus what the Asch experiments showed was not that people tend to succumb to conformity pressure, but that they want to avoid disagreeing once a relation of trust has been established.
Pretty weird that apparently this distinction didn't find more attention.
"The purpose of terrorism is to make both your opponents and supporters stupid. This works for both the attacker and the attacked. Terrorism is an expression of an unacknowledged alliance between a state and its enemies, in a War on Thought." Tinydoctor, 2015
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Dec-2023 11:05:48 JST
simsa03People have to come to a certain conclusion on their own terms, there is nothing one can do to convince them. This is because people don't react to arguments by others but only to their own cognitive dissonance. So one has to wait. They either reach the same conclusion as oneself, then fine. Or they don't, and then both have to live with that.
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 13-Dec-2023 10:08:17 JST
simsa03There seems to be a misconception in talking about extrovert and introvert. The distinction usually means something like being outward oriented vs inward, socially engaged vs withdrawn and secluded. Sometimes it is even said that the distinction covers where people "get their energy" from, e.g., from the interaction with people vs the interaction with one's ideas. But that characterization passes over an important, though barely visible phenomenon that gets lost when thinking about extrovert and introvert in the aforementioned way. The interesting phenomenon is that some people tend to live with people that are present, whereas others tend to live with people that are absent. That is, some people focus on the interaction with people that are present in their outer lifes, in their spatial vicinity, whereas others focus on the interaction with people that are absent in their outer life but very present in their inner life. Both ways can be painted as people living on different banks of the river Hades, some "here", "in the present", while others "there", in some "other world" or "underworld". The interesting thing is that this phenomenon is independent from but is often mixed up in the talk of "extrovert" and "introvert" (the "absent people" being equated with "ideas"). It ignores that one can be very extrovert and still live with the absent people, as one can be very introvert and live with a whole bunch of people in the near vicinity. Or put differently: The direction one "looks" in doesn't determine what one is looking at. Different chatters arise where one dwells, and they have little to do with how one is looking.
Dig me a war, and throw everything in it throw all the shrapnel throw all the unexploded bomblets throw all the undetonated shells, mines, all the unused ordnance throw all the bullets that ripped through flesh and the shell casings Throw all the knives that cut throats
Dig me a war, and throw everything in it
throw all the toxic chemicals pour in all the jellied gasoline pour in all the blood and ignite it
In topology, a donut and a coffee cup are the same thing; a torus. I amuse myself by imagining a topology of the soul, similarly pliable--and it's got a hole in it somewhere.
I am tempted to propose the sheer perversity and depravity of humanity, the "in-" of human) is the most convincing proof that god exists, and these wise guys out-aquinas Aquinas and out-Frankenstein Frankenstein (Mary Shelley) in their quest to ad absurdum prove god by building deity into the machine, and concoct its gospel out of code, fides ex #algorithm. Upload yourselves already. #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 13:49:32 JST
simsa03It occurred to me lately that there are people whose personality is way too small for their soul. Likewise there are people whose soul is too small to match their personality. And then, of course, there a people whose souls and personalities fit: both bright or both small. Me? I found myself in the second category. :-)
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 13:39:37 JST
simsa03Why should I not be a religious person? I just don't believe in a transcendent God but (at most) in an immanent one. A God in this world, not beyond it. Or, to put it differently: As I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't believe in a transcendent God beyond this world who, by His very being transcendent, ensures a "place" where my soul can fly to after death. Thus I rather believe in Him as immanent, as being-in-this-world.
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Saturday, 02-Dec-2023 13:20:00 JST
simsa03The reason the human beast loves is not to produce offsprings – a typical banality by the instrumental reason – but to sooth our dying. Thus Freud wasn't wrong that love and death are connected, but not in the naïve way he thought they are, as eros and thanatos. Love is not the opposite of death, it is that alleviates dying, that helps the human beast, fatefully conscious, to bear the anguish that comes with the latter.
Nice of you to say this, thank you! And yes, I go with "dents". :-)
I'm not sure I would phrase it the way you do and speak of hope as something that distorts the way reality is or how it appears. Hope, like expectation, is a ways to sense the future (like perception is one for snesing the present, and remebrance one for sensing the past). I prefer to call hope a sense organ, something by which we can "see" the future and bring it into the present. It conveys a sense of possibility, and in doing that helps prevent the present from becoming literal and one-sided. With hope we are able to not fall into the trap of unambiguousness and unequivocalness. Which is necessary because when times become literal and unambiguous, they become violent and belligerent. A sense of ambivalence, of varieties of possibilities, is needed to keep peace present in a period of time. Thus I wasn't talking how hope distorts (or may distort) our view on reality, but what may be seen (or what may be perceivable) when hope is not interfering.
Thanks. You too. (I'll have a load of work at the job but it will be fine.)
I often come back to the different forms that hope can take, esp. with different ages. Young people's hope is about them and the world, about looking forward, nourished by a lot of energy. The hope of the old (or older) is different: There is a form of hope that arises exactly when the experience of failure sets in. In this hope the difference between oneself and the world seems sharper, and with it the relief that, thanks heaven, the world is not the same as one's life, so it doesn't have to be about one's personal fears and outlooks. The complexity and the age of the world comes more to attention, and that things will turn out well exactly because they no longer need to be about oneself.
I find this hope of the older folks quite different from that of the younger people who haven't failed yet and didn't have that experience. And likewise, older people should connect to this "other" hope, for one in order not to be a leecher on the young (quite cringeworthy to see), and to feed the young in their despair about the world for the other.
In that sense, I'm not "against" hope as my esarlier post may have suggested. In that earlier context, I spoke of the absence of hope, and the needlessness of hope.
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Friday, 01-Dec-2023 13:46:13 JST
simsa03The way I think about my own dying and death has changed over the decades. From musings soaked in fantasies, images, longings, stories of heroism and sacrifice, to a far more mundane and matter-of-fact estimate of what I may have to confront and go through in the moments of dying. In thinking about this topic, or by thinking with the help of this topic, I learn more and more what terrors.(but also what joys) I made my life eschew until a large part of my "how-it-feels-to-be-myself" (the tò tí ên eînai, so to speak) became to consist in this how the stasis feels that results from the eschewing. A large factor that helps in this clarity is the vanishing of hope. Or rather: the becoming unimportant of hope. As this conduit of imagery dries up, clarity arises from some other.