Are we discovering more than we can process?

[Luna]

I think our capacity to process has always been in step with the technology of the day, and also linked to the overall size and diversity of the population. I'm not sure this is something we are just now discovering, I think it has always happened.  As we learn new stuff, and learn to do new stuff, it gets absorbed and incorporated into the human population. 

I still think, even on an individual level, your average joe was probably just as bewildered by all of the cool technology, gadgets, and new scientific knowledge of the day as we are today. 

Except a rock and a stick didn't come with a 3 volume instruction manual.

Way back then,the rock and the stick were rarely the cause of a lawsuit because some moron smacked himself in the head with them.  Nowadays, at least two of the volumes are "we told you not to do "X", so you can't sue us because you're an idiot and did it knowing it would cost you a limb."

[Cramulus]

technology facilitates access to knowledge
and as time goes on, we get better at teaching

nothing transhuman about it.

[AFK]

If you were going to go down the Transhumanist path, why didn't you just say so?

We're all going down the transhumanist path, we just haven't got to the weird stage yet but it's in the post.

Consider this - could you process the amount you're already processing if it wasn't for technology? With the net, you're tied in to information that no longer requires you to walk down to the library. With your smartphone or outlook calendar you're capable of managing appointments and contacts on a level that would require a half ton of filofax. As the tech gets smaller and the interface more streamlined there comes that "icky" part which the transhumanists masturbate to, where they drill a little hole in your head and plug some kind of machine in there but, in my opinion, this distinction is artifical, created by our own squeamishness. In reality the leap from paper to digital to a chip in your head is simply progress.

Maybe it's the Ted Kascynski in me, but I'm not completely sold on this being progress.  It seems to me that all of this smartphone, internet, techno-bling technology is simply increasing the amount of noise compared to signal.  That information, in a way, is becoming more fast food, than a full made-from-scratch nutritious meal.  

I think research has certainly become more convenient compared to when I was in High School and College, but I don't feel like I have access to any more quality information than I had before.    

[AFK]

I think our capacity to process has always been in step with the technology of the day, and also linked to the overall size and diversity of the population. I'm not sure this is something we are just now discovering, I think it has always happened.  As we learn new stuff, and learn to do new stuff, it gets absorbed and incorporated into the human population.  

I still think, even on an individual level, your average joe was probably just as bewildered by all of the cool technology, gadgets, and new scientific knowledge of the day as we are today.  

Except a rock and a stick didn't come with a 3 volume instruction manual.

One day I will post the directions on how to turn off the seat belt dinger in my Jeep. You won't believe it.

But perhaps instead it was a 3 hour lecture from Professor Ook!  Or a cave-drawing that one had to travel to to fully understand the proper utilization of the new tool. 

[LMNO]

I think our capacity to process has always been in step with the technology of the day, and also linked to the overall size and diversity of the population. I'm not sure this is something we are just now discovering, I think it has always happened.  As we learn new stuff, and learn to do new stuff, it gets absorbed and incorporated into the human population.  

I still think, even on an individual level, your average joe was probably just as bewildered by all of the cool technology, gadgets, and new scientific knowledge of the day as we are today.  

Except a rock and a stick didn't come with a 3 volume instruction manual.

One day I will post the directions on how to turn off the seat belt dinger in my Jeep. You won't believe it.

But turning it into an aerodynamically effecient arrow took hundreds of precise steps; enough, in fact, to fill a three volume instruction manual.

Which definition of "process" are you using again?

I'm asking honestly, because my answer depends on what you're really asking.

Take on board, assimilate, make use of kinda thing?

So,

Consider this - could you process the amount you're already processing if it wasn't for technology?

Could I make use of as much information as I'm already making use of if it wasn't for technology?

That's kind of circular.  I feel I could process the same amount of information as I do now if it wasn't for technology, yes.  The type of information I process is different with technology, but I don't think I process a greater amount of information, no.

A Metaphor:
The brain is like a computer.  It has a capacity of 25GB, and a processing speed of 2Ghz.  That is how it is built.
Whether it captures 1 byte of 1 million different things, or 500,000 bytes of two different things, modern technology does not affect how the computer is built.

Additionally, information is fractal.  Ask why the sky is blue enough times, and you end up with quarks and photons.  Just because the buffet of information choices has gotten bigger doesn't mean that each piece of information can't be examined closer, generating more information.

[Adios]

1. Turn the ignition switch to the OFF position, and buckle the driver's seat belt.
2. Turn the ignition switch to the ON/RUN position (do not start the engine), and wait for the Seat Belt Reminder Light to turn off.
3. Within 60 seconds of starting the vehicle, unbuckle and then re-buckle the driver's seat belt at least three times within 10 seconds, ending with the seat belt buckled.
4. Turn the ignition switch to the OFF position. A single chime will sound to signify that you have successfully completed the programming.


Sorry, had to do that. Back on topic.

This thread is interesting as hell. I had no idea it would grow to this. Now, I may be a little dense, but all of the technology has created an entire new language and lifestyle for so many. Many humans have adapted and grown with this.
In a decade I think it will be completely different than even today and if we can't keep up we won't even be able to communicate with the kids. At least on a tech level. When personal computers first started taking off they were obsolete in a couple of months.
New technology and software was coming in at amazing speed. We adapted. Same with phones, televisions, hell everything.

Sometimes my brain feels all stretched out and full.

[Cramulus]

Maybe it's the Ted Kascynski in me, but I'm not completely sold on this being progress.  It seems to me that all of this smartphone, internet, techno-bling technology is simply increasing the amount of noise compared to signal.  That information, in a way, is becoming more fast food, than a full made-from-scratch nutritious meal.  

I think research has certainly become more convenient compared to when I was in High School and College, but I don't feel like I have access to any more quality information than I had before.    

yes, you have higher access to both signal and noise. This makes signal detection doubly important.

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. 

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

A Metaphor:
The brain is like a computer.  It has a capacity of 25GB, and a processing speed of 2Ghz.  That is how it is built.
Whether it captures 1 byte of 1 million different things, or 500,000 bytes of two different things, modern technology does not affect how the computer is built.

My memory is augmented by online documentation. I don't need to know every single function and syntax of php, mysql and javascript in order to do my job. I can look it up. In the good old days you used a paper manual and you read it cover to cover as many times as it took to get all that info in your head and it took ages and you still had to have the manual handy for when you forgot something and "remembering" it was a slow process. Nowadays not so much. And I'm capable of writing code a lot quicker than I was back then.

The brain computer? I use it for problem solving and creative shit which it's really good at. The memory? Replaced it with a better system, years ago. Never really trusted the old one.

[Adios]

A Metaphor:
The brain is like a computer.  It has a capacity of 25GB, and a processing speed of 2Ghz.  That is how it is built.
Whether it captures 1 byte of 1 million different things, or 500,000 bytes of two different things, modern technology does not affect how the computer is built.

My memory is augmented by online documentation. I don't need to know every single function and syntax of php, mysql and javascript in order to do my job. I can look it up. In the good old days you used a paper manual and you read it cover to cover as many times as it took to get all that info in your head and it took ages and you still had to have the manual handy for when you forgot something and "remembering" it was a slow process. Nowadays not so much. And I'm capable of writing code a lot quicker than I was back then.

The brain computer? I use it for problem solving and creative shit which it's really good at. The memory? Replaced it with a better system, years ago. Never really trusted the old one.

The brain has finite capacity? Serious question.

[AFK]

yes, you have higher access to both signal and noise. This makes signal detection doubly important.

This is where I differentiate from a knowledge seeker (active) and a knowledge absorber (passive).  I think the knowledge seeker, despite the technology that exists, is going to know how to get the information they need.  So signal detection really isn't much of a factor.  I mean, I knew before the internet that I didn't want to get my sources from Newsweek magazine and that I needed access to scholarly journals.  The internet hasn't changed that.  I still know what I'm looking for.  The internet has simply made the process of actually getting my hands and eyes on the information more convenient.  It's like an information valet.  

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.  

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 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.  

[P3nT4gR4m]

A Metaphor:
The brain is like a computer.  It has a capacity of 25GB, and a processing speed of 2Ghz.  That is how it is built.
Whether it captures 1 byte of 1 million different things, or 500,000 bytes of two different things, modern technology does not affect how the computer is built.

My memory is augmented by online documentation. I don't need to know every single function and syntax of php, mysql and javascript in order to do my job. I can look it up. In the good old days you used a paper manual and you read it cover to cover as many times as it took to get all that info in your head and it took ages and you still had to have the manual handy for when you forgot something and "remembering" it was a slow process. Nowadays not so much. And I'm capable of writing code a lot quicker than I was back then.

The brain computer? I use it for problem solving and creative shit which it's really good at. The memory? Replaced it with a better system, years ago. Never really trusted the old one.

The brain has finite capacity? Serious question.

No idea, tbh but I'd expect so. It wasn't the capacity that put me off using it it was the shitty recall.

[LMNO]

A Metaphor:
The brain is like a computer.  It has a capacity of 25GB, and a processing speed of 2Ghz.  That is how it is built.
Whether it captures 1 byte of 1 million different things, or 500,000 bytes of two different things, modern technology does not affect how the computer is built.

My memory is augmented by online documentation. I don't need to know every single function and syntax of php, mysql and javascript in order to do my job. I can look it up. In the good old days you used a paper manual and you read it cover to cover as many times as it took to get all that info in your head and it took ages and you still had to have the manual handy for when you forgot something and "remembering" it was a slow process. Nowadays not so much. And I'm capable of writing code a lot quicker than I was back then.

The brain computer? I use it for problem solving and creative shit which it's really good at. The memory? Replaced it with a better system, years ago. Never really trusted the old one.

Um. That's kind of my point.  If all you did was program, you eventually wouldn't need the documentation; but you wouldn't be able to do a lot of other things. Your brain would have devoted a large chunk to programming.  But since you want to do other things as well, you use a smaller chunk of your brain for that, and reserve a chunk for, say, knowing how to cook.  

The brain function stays constant; it processes information as a constant; your use of that constant has changed.

[Kai]

P3nt, you almost make a good point, until it becomes clear that the even though the non-biological term "evolution" may have come first, the vast majority of current usage takes its meaning and context from the incorrectly understood principles of biological evolution.


Also, Kai-- What is your opinion on Elizer's sequences on evolution?  As someone who knows more about it than me, I'd be very interested as to his accuracy.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Evolution

I think he has the right idea. Not too keen on his "alien god" metaphor, but that's because I've been working with the concepts so long that it doesn't seem alien to me. That, and his group selectionism post is outdated, ignoring all the evidence for multiple levels of selection.

As for the rest of you'all, fuck it. I've been talking about this stuff for years on her, and getting a bit tired of having to explain the same things over and over again. If it comes off as condescending, that's the reason. Maybe I should just start linking to websites instead.

[Adios]

A Metaphor:
The brain is like a computer.  It has a capacity of 25GB, and a processing speed of 2Ghz.  That is how it is built.
Whether it captures 1 byte of 1 million different things, or 500,000 bytes of two different things, modern technology does not affect how the computer is built.

My memory is augmented by online documentation. I don't need to know every single function and syntax of php, mysql and javascript in order to do my job. I can look it up. In the good old days you used a paper manual and you read it cover to cover as many times as it took to get all that info in your head and it took ages and you still had to have the manual handy for when you forgot something and "remembering" it was a slow process. Nowadays not so much. And I'm capable of writing code a lot quicker than I was back then.

The brain computer? I use it for problem solving and creative shit which it's really good at. The memory? Replaced it with a better system, years ago. Never really trusted the old one.

Um. That's kind of my point.  If all you did was program, you eventually wouldn't need the documentation; but you wouldn't be able to do a lot of other things. Your brain would have devoted a large chunk to programming.  But since you want to do other things as well, you use a smaller chunk of your brain for that, and reserve a chunk for, say, knowing how to cook.  

The brain function stays constant; it processes information as a constant; your use of that constant has changed.

Okay, I realize I am going to have to do some research.

1) Is the brain simply storage or is it divided into partitions? A part for reasoning, etc.
2) If the brain get full, then what? There doesn't seem to be a delete function for selected information?

[LMNO]

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.