Are we discovering more than we can process?

[Cramulus]

But you don't think you have access to better knowledge now? Wikipedia has 3.4 million articles - whereas the best dead-tree encyclopedias might have half a million (and even there we're talking about the gigantic 70-volume sets you don't commonly see in libraries). With such a broad range of input, surely there must be a better signal in there.

I would argue that wikipedia is part of the noise/signal problem.  I'm sure there are submissions and entries that have adequate fidelity to the facts of the particular topic, but I'm not sure that can be ascribed to all the information contained within.  

It doesn't have to be ALL high quality info to have a strong signal... If you're looking up something really obscure or something in current events, you are much better served by a digital encyclopedia than a dead tree encyclopedia. And there are generally links to citations and discussions, so you have more tools to research whether that info is valid.

Or let's look at medical info -- webMD can teach me in minutes what would take me hours of research in a library. A wider range of input, when coupled with an information aggregation process, makes high quality info more popular and salient. Meta-Discussions about that information are easier to access as well - as any wikipedia discussion page will reveal. So not only do you have more signals to choose from, you have better tools to determine what's signal and what's noise.

I've found webMD to be mostly useless, in terms of diagnosing.  If there is something wrong with me or someone in my family, I'll get knowledge the same way I did before the internet.  I'll call the doctor's office.

I dunno, I still think there's more info today than there was 10 years ago. And more info about that info. Which the signal we're looking for much easier to find.

As an odd note:  When I worked in a Dr's office, we actually used WebMD for a variety of things when the Doctor was too busy to answer our questions. If you want to look (for example) up drug interactions for newer pharmaceuticals, it's much more efficient than looking up the published literature in a printed journal. Still no substitute for a medical doctor, but a doctor is a very limited resource!

I personally think webMD has a sizable downside as it may cause people to not call a doctor because they've assumed they are okay based upon a lack of understanding of the information and what is actually happening to them.  And I remember before the Internet, my mom had all kinds of reference books at home that were easily available at a bookstore where you could look up symptoms and learn about different diseases.  So I would argue that the knowledge seeker still had access to this kind of information before the internet.  

This really speaks to Charlie's OP --

There is way more info available to people now. And you're right, some people aren't able to distinguish between signal and noise. (ie they may think that medical info online is a substitute for an actual doctor). Not to repeat myself, but I think this signal detection problem is evidence that there's more info than ever before.

[Adios]

Please don't take my metaphor too literally.  I was trying to make a point about the brain operating at a constant, more or less.  The amount of technology available does not affect the operation speed of the brain, but it is possible to use the brain more effeciently using technology.

That doesn't mean the brain is changing, it means the way we use the brain is changing.

I understand, but my mind made that jump. I have no idea if it's even possible to fill a brain given that we have lifetimes of memories stored in there.

[AFK]

There is way more info available to people now. And you're right, some people aren't able to distinguish between signal and noise. (ie they may think that medical info online is a substitute for an actual doctor). Not to repeat myself, but I think this signal detection problem is evidence that there's more info than ever before.

I'm not sure that is speaks to the original question though, which was whether we were discovering more than we can process.  I think with technology we have more convenient access to input.  But I think this has lead to more, as I characterized before "fast food" information.  I think message boards are a good example, particularly political message boards.  Your typical ideologue on a message board isn't going to do an in-depth search for information and actually weigh the information to come up with an opinion.  They are going to tend to do a Google search and use the first entry that validates what they already believe.  This doesn't do anything to increase knowledge or add to knowledge.  It just hardens pre-conceived notions. 

But as far as actual discoveries of new knowledge and technologies, I again think we are biased by hindsight.  I think it is pretty likely we will be seen to be just a primitive 2000 years from now as we view the societies of 2000 years ago.  Certainly, to us a cell phone seems like hot shit compared to a wooden arrow with a sharp rock tied to it, but in that time it was probably huge.  I really think it is all relative to the times. 

[Adios]

LMAO.

My research on the brain is canceled due to too much and too conflicting information. 

[Jenne]

I don't think we have to necessarily worry, though, about how BIG a discovery the internet or cellphone or whatever is vs. the rock/stick.  All I know is, the astronauts talked from outer space above my city to the kids in my neighborhood via satellite and hamm fucking radio yesterday.

THAT shit, no matter how you slice it, rock/stick/laser...is HOTTER than hell.  That is fiction becoming reality, and if it doesn't blow your mind in some way, I think we've all just become too jaded about the realms of possibility.  

When we look at the fact that the RESTRICTION of information is the fastest way a government can punish a people who's rising up against it (I'm thinking Egypt recently knocking its people off the grid while they protested), we know that that information is POWERFUL as a tool.

So now, we have more power than we ever have had before.  And you know this when you live in a Communist or Fascist place that restricts this power in any way, shape or form.  THAT in and of itself is a big deal.

And again, our ability to process it all comes with education.  With all this tappable knowledge, we haven't become stupider, we just have to obtain a higher level of understanding about the world we live in and the world around us and WITHOUT us than ever before.  That takes a skill set that though we have been taught it to some degree, is still catching up to speed in terms of sheer volume.

I don't think our brains are any more or less capable than before, I think it's just the expectation of what's to be known and usable has risen as other practices were set aside.  Things that are no longer necessary to everyday life have been set aside to make room for others (so we no longer set fires in our stoves before we cook, but we can set timers on our microwaves or TiVos).  Same brain uses, but for different outcomes.

There are ways in which our worlds are smaller and yet broader.  We  now encompass the world in a lot of our ways of thinking, whereas before, in our grandparents' generation, they really didn't have a clue about the everyday life of someone in Tunisia or Cairo.

Now, this is a forum full of hyperaware people.  You cats care a shitload more about people, places and things far removed from your daily lives.  I do believe that people elsewhere who don't live on the internet are perhaps similarly isolated as we all were so many decades ago.  That is now, though, a separation of culture rather than ability.  I don't believe that you can call those who don't aspire to know more and research over the internet anything other than "less informed."

...this has its own repercussions, of course.  I liken it to those who didn't watch television growing up--a whole subsector of their culture is missing, as they don't have shared experiences and knowledge bases that can foster a sense of community and understanding about those you lived in and amongst.

Anyway, to get back to the OP:  I don't think we are creating more than we can understand.  That line of reasoning seems to stem from fear.  Fear borne of awe in what has been achieved, and fear of failing to recognize its significance.

However, as I previously stated in this thread, I think we can do better in catching up the cultural practices that seem at odds with the use of a hypertechnologized lifestyle.  I think we can educate people better (that will start with the kids who have grown up with all this as rote) on its uses and its disuses/abuses.

...but then that's always the case, innit?

[LMNO]

Well said, Jenne.

[Jenne]

  Thanks.  I did that in like 15 minutes' worth of working, so if it's a bit disjointed, I was uh multitasking, lmao.

GOTTA LOVE THE INTERBUTTS.

[Adios]

  Thanks.  I did that in like 15 minutes' worth of working, so if it's a bit disjointed, I was uh multitasking, lmao.

GOTTA LOVE THE INTERBUTTS.

Perhaps you are right in that it comes from fear, hadn't considered that at all.

[P3nT4gR4m]

  Thanks.  I did that in like 15 minutes' worth of working, so if it's a bit disjointed, I was uh multitasking, lmao.

GOTTA LOVE THE INTERBUTTS.

Perhaps you are right in that it comes from fear, hadn't considered that at all.

Lotta folks fear change. I think it's a survival mechanism or some shit but it's perfectly normal. As is the rush that comes when you undig your heels and just embrace the shit and realise how cool it all is.

... then it turns evil and kills ya

[Slyph]

Wikipedia article: Third International - 4844 words

Wikipedia article: Dragonball Z- 5491 words

[Captain Utopia]

My main issue with Wikipedia comes in the form of the stuff they decide isn't worthy of documentation so they just delete it.  When it comes down to territorial pissing and subjectively applied bureaucracy, the admins over there are true masters.  Deleting information pisses me off more than it should, rationally, do.  The signal/noise argument doesn't pass muster since if something is noise to you, then it can be safely put onto its own page.

Oh, and  to Jenne!

[Cain]

Are we discovering more than we can process?

What do you mean "we", white man?

[Cain]

My main issue with Wikipedia comes in the form of the stuff they decide isn't worthy of documentation so they just delete it.  When it comes down to territorial pissing and subjectively applied bureaucracy, the admins over there are true masters.  Deleting information pisses me off more than it should, rationally, do.  The signal/noise argument doesn't pass muster since if something is noise to you, then it can be safely put onto its own page.

Oh, and  to Jenne!

My problem with Wikipedia is that they put up information that is plain wrong and let themselves be used to suppress the truth through omission and deciding which facts are "relevant" or not.

[Adios]

Are we discovering more than we can process?

What do you mean "we", white man?

Who you calling white?

[Cramulus]

yeah -- put shortly: the problem with wikipedia is that they have yet to perfect the many-to-many editorial process.


In contrast, I've heard that the German wikipedia is focused on being not necessarily the largest, but the most accurate version of wikipedia - they tend to have tighter articles but very contentious discussion pages.

I bet we'll discover other ways to manage information in the coming years. For example, maybe it'd be nice if there was a relatively objective expert assigned to each page. Somebody like that should have the ability to moderate pages within his field of expertise, rejecting unsourced data. Currently editors do get assigned groups of pages based on their expertise, but a layman can still become the champion of a page if he's got enough wikipedia-editor cred. Food for thought. /tangent