In light of recent discoveries I have been thinking about this.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:55:34 PM
In light of recent discoveries I have been thinking about this.
Thoughts?
Please elaborate.
Yes, for certain values of "we".
That is to say, the people discovering new things are processing them just fine, but the people who are hearing second or third hand about new things are having a hard time processing all the new things they're hearing about.
With new technology we seem to be finding more information. From out own planet to the universe. The Hadron Collider is on the verge of a huge discovery. Are we in a position to really process the barrage of information coming from every angle?
Will people have to become even more specialized to do this?
Just the recent posts in the technology forum are mind boggling to me.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 03:57:14 PM
That is to say, the people discovering new things are processing them just fine, but the people who are hearing second or third hand about new things are having a hard time processing all the new things they're hearing about.
So, like, the very people tasked with making Important Decisions, then?
:horrormirth:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 03:57:14 PM
Yes, for certain values of "we".
That is to say, the people discovering new things are processing them just fine, but the people who are hearing second or third hand about new things are having a hard time processing all the new things they're hearing about.
Which leads me to wonder about how they are to be integrated. How will X affect Y kind of thing.
To OP: Yes. Taking a wide angle view and trying to digest everything new that people figure, re figure, stuble into, or remember would eb like going to a chinese joint every day and ordering everything on the menu...and they make a new menu with new dishes every day.
Some people know an incredible amount about very focused things. I do a little, and folks like Kai do to a really impressive degree. no one specializes in everything at once though.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:59:55 PM
With new technology we seem to be finding more information. From out own planet to the universe. The Hadron Collider is on the verge of a huge discovery. Are we in a position to really process the barrage of information coming from every angle?
Will people have to become even more specialized to do this?
Just the recent posts in the technology forum are mind boggling to me.
I think for the mass population technology will always be one generation ahead of being widely understood. There is shit coming out now that I find sort of confusing, but babies being born now probably won't.
Humans over time have had to adapt to the new "toys" and newer ways of thinking, as well as new knowledge bases that are shared with an ever-increasing number of audience members.
I guess I have a great reference to this watching as Afghans the country over have cell phones by the millions--but guess how many have hot and cold running water or electricity on a regular basis?
One of the things that might become necessary as a social change in the next couple of decades is extra time for higher education. It makes some sense anyway as our life expectancies are longer. There would have to be other changes though, such as improving the quality of health as one gets older, as well as some economic adjustments.
I have a horrible vision of one dimensional people being needed in the future.
It boggles the mind how much we DO process. Just in my lifetime, we've gone from computers that would fill an entire room that could handle simple math to carrying the internet around in our pockets... and nobody really thinks twice about just how amazing that is.
People process what they're handed and what they deal with daily. Or they process what they go looking for. Some people, however, are just too lazy to stretch their minds around some of the stuff out there.
To the question:
For the "common" man, I would say yes.
But as a collective species, I don't think it is any different today than it was long ago. That is because I think our capacity to explore and understand is reactive, not proactive. That is, it is reactive to things like population size. The more people we have in society the bigger capacity we have to branch out and diversify into new areas of knowledge.
So I think the capacity stays in step with the species. I think the caveman was probably just as awe-struck with the wheel as we are with the Hadron collider.
Another thought: One of the principles of the BIP is that REALITY is whirling around us all the time, and we're unable to process most of it, for various reasons.
What a lot of these new technologies are doing are merely showing us the stuff we're unable to process on our own.
For the most part, the stuff we're discovering has no impact on our day-to-day lives, other than from a philisophical outlook. I mean, what impact does an infinite universe have on tonight's dinner?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:13:15 PM
Another thought: One of the principles of the BIP is that REALITY is whirling around us all the time, and we're unable to process most of it, for various reasons.
What a lot of these new technologies are doing are merely showing us the stuff we're unable to process on our own.
For the most part, the stuff we're discovering has no impact on our day-to-day lives, other than from a philisophical outlook. I mean, what impact does an infinite universe have on tonight's dinner?
It won't affect tonights dinner, but what technology will todays discoveries bring tomorrow? This is what I meant when I asked how everything will be integrated. In simpler times (maybe) the space program brought many seeming miraculous things in our daily lives.
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:13:15 PM
Another thought: One of the principles of the BIP is that REALITY is whirling around us all the time, and we're unable to process most of it, for various reasons.
What a lot of these new technologies are doing are merely showing us the stuff we're unable to process on our own.
For the most part, the stuff we're discovering has no impact on our day-to-day lives, other than from a philisophical outlook. I mean, what impact does an infinite universe have on tonight's dinner?
Not much until someone discovers Space Chickens.
Ha. Alphapance, you just reminded me of the ubiquitous "flashing 12:00" on the VCR. That became so ingrained as an "unknowable feature" (changing the time), that it was a cliche.
But...here's the thing--sometimes the more intricate pieces of knowledge about a technology aren't necessary to know in order to utilize it effectively.
After all, then you wouldn't really need a TV or washer and dryer repair man if you knew how it worked.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:13:15 PM
Another thought: One of the principles of the BIP is that REALITY is whirling around us all the time, and we're unable to process most of it, for various reasons.
What a lot of these new technologies are doing are merely showing us the stuff we're unable to process on our own.
For the most part, the stuff we're discovering has no impact on our day-to-day lives, other than from a philisophical outlook. I mean, what impact does an infinite universe have on tonight's dinner?
Not much until someone discovers Space Chickens.
:argh!:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
I sure can't.
I do think we ARE in an age of information/technology where the speed of discovery and dissemination is faster than it ever has been. Some have called it a "revolution," like the Industrial Revolution, etc. I think we have had a lessening of the FEAR of new technology (again, watching a 3rd worlder approach things they've never seen only ever heard of is a fascinating way to learn about all this), and this is definitely brought about because of how quickly everything has been changing and how quickly it becomes consumable and usable by the general populace.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 03, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
You are correct, the terms have different meanings. Eggheads process, consumers drive the assimilation.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 03, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
This. We, by necessity need to screen it out from all the other stuff that isn't relevant to us
Quote from: Richter on February 03, 2011, 04:39:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 03, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
This. We, by necessity need to screen it out from all the other stuff that isn't relevant to us
LMNO pointed out earlier that the BIP resonates here and you point the same thing. There really is no escape from the BIP, is there?
...but at this point in time, we are not limited by anything other than choice in a lot of sectors in our population. The latest technological goods are not restricted by price or access any longer. This was not the case not too long ago in our history. And those producing said consumer technology know this and rely upon it. The newer devices are even made more attractive by their accessibility.
Even when they're mostly in "beta" and haven't had all the bugs worked out yet so that their function is not quite optimal yet. I'm thinking of the first Blue Ray DVD players and the first smartphones.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Richter on February 03, 2011, 04:39:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 03, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
This. We, by necessity need to screen it out from all the other stuff that isn't relevant to us
LMNO pointed out earlier that the BIP resonates here and you point the same thing. There really is no escape from the BIP, is there?
(http://www.blackironprison.com/images/4/46/Dollar_bip_niger_ferrum_carcer.jpg)
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Richter on February 03, 2011, 04:39:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 03, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
This. We, by necessity need to screen it out from all the other stuff that isn't relevant to us
LMNO pointed out earlier that the BIP resonates here and you point the same thing. There really is no escape from the BIP, is there?
Never. You get to discover and explore new cells, but you never actually see the prison walls.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:55:34 PM
In light of recent discoveries I have been thinking about this.
Thoughts?
This is the actual meaning of "the singularity" that the hippies keep jabbering about.
Instant obsolescence of knowledge.
Quote from: Jenne on February 03, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
I do think we ARE in an age of information/technology where the speed of discovery and dissemination is faster than it ever has been. Some have called it a "revolution," like the Industrial Revolution, etc. I think we have had a lessening of the FEAR of new technology (again, watching a 3rd worlder approach things they've never seen only ever heard of is a fascinating way to learn about all this), and this is definitely brought about because of how quickly everything has been changing and how quickly it becomes consumable and usable by the general populace.
Hmm, I think maybe there is an increasing gap within our human society when it comes to technology, discovery, and advancement.
But, because of the bias of hindsight, I'm not convinced that the stuff we are discovering today is that much more mindblowing than the stuff that was being discovered a thousand years ago or more.
I mean, I that's probably impossible to measure unless we discover a way to re-animate the people who lived back in those times.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 04:49:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on February 03, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
I do think we ARE in an age of information/technology where the speed of discovery and dissemination is faster than it ever has been. Some have called it a "revolution," like the Industrial Revolution, etc. I think we have had a lessening of the FEAR of new technology (again, watching a 3rd worlder approach things they've never seen only ever heard of is a fascinating way to learn about all this), and this is definitely brought about because of how quickly everything has been changing and how quickly it becomes consumable and usable by the general populace.
Hmm, I think maybe there is an increasing gap in our human society when it comes to technology, discovery, and advancement.
But, because of the bias of hindsight, I'm not convinced that the stuff we are discovering today is that much more mindblowing than the stuff that was being discovered a thousand years ago or more.
I mean, I that's probably impossible to measure unless we discover a way to re-animate the people who lived back in those times.
Next advance on the list!
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Richter on February 03, 2011, 04:39:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 03, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:26:37 PM
History has shown that new technologies can be incorporated fairly easy, once its use and market have been established.
But technology at a user level is vastly removed from understanding how it works. Most people still can't explain how a CD player really works, and that technology is already dying.
Seems to me like we've redefined "process" - Are we discovering more than we can "assimilate and make use of"?
Probably not!
This. We, by necessity need to screen it out from all the other stuff that isn't relevant to us
LMNO pointed out earlier that the BIP resonates here and you point the same thing. There really is no escape from the BIP, is there?
You can make anything resonate with anything if you try enough. Christianity's use of the death of Christ as a metaphor has proved this to me.
Not to cheapen's LMNO point, it is a valid one, but being cynical about these things helps me avoid the informaiton overload this thread cites in the first place ;)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 04:49:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on February 03, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
I do think we ARE in an age of information/technology where the speed of discovery and dissemination is faster than it ever has been. Some have called it a "revolution," like the Industrial Revolution, etc. I think we have had a lessening of the FEAR of new technology (again, watching a 3rd worlder approach things they've never seen only ever heard of is a fascinating way to learn about all this), and this is definitely brought about because of how quickly everything has been changing and how quickly it becomes consumable and usable by the general populace.
Hmm, I think maybe there is an increasing gap within our human society when it comes to technology, discovery, and advancement.
But, because of the bias of hindsight, I'm not convinced that the stuff we are discovering today is that much more mindblowing than the stuff that was being discovered a thousand years ago or more.
I mean, I that's probably impossible to measure unless we discover a way to re-animate the people who lived back in those times.
Pretty good point. I can only imagine the excitement of discovering one could make a fire at any time instead of always having to carry it around with you.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 04:49:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on February 03, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
I do think we ARE in an age of information/technology where the speed of discovery and dissemination is faster than it ever has been. Some have called it a "revolution," like the Industrial Revolution, etc. I think we have had a lessening of the FEAR of new technology (again, watching a 3rd worlder approach things they've never seen only ever heard of is a fascinating way to learn about all this), and this is definitely brought about because of how quickly everything has been changing and how quickly it becomes consumable and usable by the general populace.
Hmm, I think maybe there is an increasing gap in our human society when it comes to technology, discovery, and advancement.
But, because of the bias of hindsight, I'm not convinced that the stuff we are discovering today is that much more mindblowing than the stuff that was being discovered a thousand years ago or more.
I mean, I that's probably impossible to measure unless we discover a way to re-animate the people who lived back in those times.
Next advance on the list!
And of course those people would be instantly corrupted anyway unless you put them in an isolation containment where they can't see cell-phones, TV, velcro, breast implants, etc., etc.,
This is a repost, but I think it's relevant here too. "Digital Natives" - kids who grew up in a stimulation saturated environment have brains which develop differently and seem to have certain processing advantages, as a result.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/13/miles-obrien-is-tech.html
I'm guessing that capacity is still finite though, and no word yet on what the mystery ingredient in that "free lunch" is.
Re: Are we discovering more than we can process?
as LMNO said, it depends on the "we" you're talking about. Are we discovering stuff faster than individuals can process it? Oh hell yes, that's why people have such trouble explaining stuff like the LHC. That's (partially) why so much of the American public thinks that climate change is some kind of political gambit.
What we're observing is that information has a velocity. And certain information moves through some channels and populations faster than other information.
I'm reminded of this fictional syndrome by William Gibson, called Nerve Attenuation Syndrome. In his version of the near future, we get blasted with so much information on a minute to minute basis that can lead to a nervous breakdown. People see thousands of advertisements a day! People are exposed to large sets of conflicting information (visualize flipping back and forth between fox news and MSNBC). And as time goes on, marketers get better at grabbing our attention, creating stress, releasing that stress by making a sale...
So in the future, people start shorting out. They get nervous tics, then epileptic fits, then they just shut down. The best medicine is to spend some time in the mountains, alone.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 04:59:35 PM
This is a repost, but I think it's relevant here too. "Digital Natives" - kids who grew up in a stimulation saturated environment have brains which develop differently and seem to have certain processing advantages, as a result.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/13/miles-obrien-is-tech.html
I'm guessing that capacity is still finite though, and no word yet on what the mystery ingredient in that "free lunch" is.
So you are saying that evolution can be shaped by information? Would that make information a new environment?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 04:59:35 PM
This is a repost, but I think it's relevant here too. "Digital Natives" - kids who grew up in a stimulation saturated environment have brains which develop differently and seem to have certain processing advantages, as a result.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/13/miles-obrien-is-tech.html
I'm guessing that capacity is still finite though, and no word yet on what the mystery ingredient in that "free lunch" is.
So you are saying that evolution can be shaped by information? Would that make information a new environment?
Maybe eventually. I could see at some point in the future people who are better at processing large amounts of info get better jobs and therefore are more desirable mates. It's kinda that way now, but I think that the brain development being seen now has more to do with inherent plasticity. Could be though that people who are able to maintain plasticity eventually out compete people with less plasticity.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 04:59:35 PM
This is a repost, but I think it's relevant here too. "Digital Natives" - kids who grew up in a stimulation saturated environment have brains which develop differently and seem to have certain processing advantages, as a result.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/13/miles-obrien-is-tech.html
I'm guessing that capacity is still finite though, and no word yet on what the mystery ingredient in that "free lunch" is.
So you are saying that evolution can be shaped by information? Would that make information a new environment?
That's not so much evolution as plasticity*. Human brains are particularly good at this (which is why you know how to use a lever and your ancestors didn't).
*I may be using this term inappropriately, but since I don't know the right one I'm going to use it anyway.
So are you guys saying that the brain is not evolving to adapt to a new environment?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 04:59:35 PM
This is a repost, but I think it's relevant here too. "Digital Natives" - kids who grew up in a stimulation saturated environment have brains which develop differently and seem to have certain processing advantages, as a result.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/13/miles-obrien-is-tech.html
I'm guessing that capacity is still finite though, and no word yet on what the mystery ingredient in that "free lunch" is.
So you are saying that evolution can be shaped by information?
The point I was making only went as far to say that the development of kids brains is being effected by their environment. And we have no long-term studies to help tell us what that's going to look like in the future. Will they be burned-out by 30, super-geniuses, or pretty much what we would consider normal?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Would that make information a new environment?
I think information is one of the oldest environments we've ever known.
Given that it's how we perceive all other environments, I don't see how our ability to comprehend and manipulate more of it
couldn't affect our evolutionary paths.
Not sure how useful that is though, considering the difficulty in predicting (or even documenting) the complexity which arises from evolutionary processes.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
So are you guys saying that the brain is not evolving to adapt to a new environment?
I am.
Evolution is a process that is marked by centuries, if not millenia, and it involves those that reproduce, and genetic biological change.
What we're talking about here is not the physical structure of the braing changing. It's still a brain, and it looks like a brain of 100 years ago.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 04:49:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on February 03, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
I do think we ARE in an age of information/technology where the speed of discovery and dissemination is faster than it ever has been. Some have called it a "revolution," like the Industrial Revolution, etc. I think we have had a lessening of the FEAR of new technology (again, watching a 3rd worlder approach things they've never seen only ever heard of is a fascinating way to learn about all this), and this is definitely brought about because of how quickly everything has been changing and how quickly it becomes consumable and usable by the general populace.
Hmm, I think maybe there is an increasing gap within our human society when it comes to technology, discovery, and advancement.
But, because of the bias of hindsight, I'm not convinced that the stuff we are discovering today is that much more mindblowing than the stuff that was being discovered a thousand years ago or more.
I mean, I that's probably impossible to measure unless we discover a way to re-animate the people who lived back in those times.
Well, I think we can ask people like my grandmother, who started out being raised on a hog farm in the 1930's and who now use the internet for all their corresepondance with their grandchildren. Or people like my husband's stepfather who thought that when he saw "Lord of the Rings" it was about real events. And he thought Disneyland was "real America." Not the urban slums he was living in.
The speed of technological assimilation and the degree to which our lifestyles change to fit their use seems to be very fast indeed. We went from courier mail systems to electronic communication that is not only realtime but IMMEDIATE in delivery and expectation (that last is the most important) in mere decades. The demand for information to be by the second is phenomenal, considering. And if you know someone who is from somewhere where this is not the case, and you listen to their point of view on life and what matters, you get a sense of "where we were" before this all blew up and became so integral in day to day life.
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 06:53:10 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
So are you guys saying that the brain is not evolving to adapt to a new environment?
I am.
Evolution is a process that is marked by centuries, if not millenia, and it involves those that reproduce, and genetic biological change.
What we're talking about here is not the physical structure of the braing changing. It's still a brain, and it looks like a brain of 100 years ago.
I suppose this is true as it really depends on an individual and how they respond to info overload. I do feel like it's an info overload at times but natural curiosity still keeps me digging around for more. Sometimes it feels so very counter productive.
I think it was Cram earlier that said the best thing to do sometimes is to just go sit on a mountain.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I think we are. I remember clearly when the way to do research was to go to the library. I was 30 before I ever even used a computer, and it certainly wasn't then what it is now. Information is everywhere. Things a guy like me would never heard of are at the tips of my fingers. Places like this board are always presenting new information to research. We are able to instantly communicate thoughts and ideas that lead to an increase in knowledge.
Some days it feels like a child in the kitchen playing with a pot and a spoon, constantly banging in my head.
As to the BRAIN and what it can adapt to or soak up and use, it's a unique little organ (ok, not so fucking little, lol) that still confounds and amazes those who study it. Again, the test of such things is to me not really how well we in the midst of our OWN cultural morass have adapted but instead those who have moved not only cultures and countries but TIME PERIODS as well. The strange ability of the PERSON to adapt to climate changes, time changes, food changes--experiential and yet CRUCIAL to human survival (I'm talking depression and suicide, homicide, dementia, I'm also talking sickness and starvation--and I know those this has happened to as well upon moving to the US--my husband's uncle got SCURVY in the 80's after he moved here from Germany).
Because what a human experiences in order to get through day to day life is the essential of where he's moving about and how he's moving through the universe. So those things that are shaping it are pretty damned important in the scheme of things. I'm now thinking of those who used to rely on pay phones for contact with others. Just that very institution is pretty much GONE in California. So if someone doesn't have a cell phone and needs to telephone someone, it's pretty difficult: businesses don't let you use their phones--and a lot of folks don't own a home phone/land line anymore, either. It's all cell phones.
So here we have a recent invention--the cell phone--that's gone from community to public to private and individuated in a mere century of use. And those phones now have immediate delivery of news, media and commerce. You pay your fucking bills on them. THAT is significant. It's huge, in fact. And there's a satellite in OUTERFUCKINGSPACE that directs it all.
I'm sorry, I'm no historian, but I do believe this is a big fucking deal. Like the loom. And the matchstick.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
It's just different information, and the stresses we put on it.
I mean, if you were living in the Amazon, and you had to deal with an environment that could kill you 50 ways in 10 minutes, every day of your life, you'd consider that a lot of information to process, right?
In some way it gets to the psychology of marketing... people find what the brain naturally is attracted to, and then exploit it. So it's not the amount of information, it's the way that information is presented. And if we learn how our brain works, we can set up meta-barriers to it. Which means we're not dealing with information overload, we're dealing with
bastards who are trying to manipulate us.[/i]
Which is not exactly new. Just more clever.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
Yes. We have less physical environment to deal with that would inhibit adaptation or understanding.
Really fucking inconvenient to get to know a new fandangly thing when 1) you're diseased 2) you're too poor to afford it because of #1 or 3) you're hungry or 4) you can't read or 5) there's no way to get the 50 miles away to see it and get back because 6) there's too much weather/snow/mud or roads...
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
THAT is a nurture vs. nature debate that is well, sketchy scientifically. For one thing...a lot of ADHD and autism diagnoses are popping up not because people are getting it at a faster rate but because the science behind the diagnosis is changing. So whereas before so-and-so was a "problem child," now they are autistic or have ADD.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
I would argue that input =/= knowledge. I think it would be interesting to look at a similar time in our history. The time when books became mass produced and widely available. I would think that would be a similar time where all of a sudden kids and all people gained access, in a relatively short period of time, to all kinds of input and information.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 07:13:46 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
It's just different information, and the stresses we put on it.
I mean, if you were living in the Amazon, and you had to deal with an environment that could kill you 50 ways in 10 minutes, every day of your life, you'd consider that a lot of information to process, right?
In some way it gets to the psychology of marketing... people find what the brain naturally is attracted to, and then exploit it. So it's not the amount of information, it's the way that information is presented. And if we learn how our brain works, we can set up meta-barriers to it. Which means we're not dealing with information overload, we're dealing with bastards who are trying to manipulate us.
Which is not exactly new. Just more clever.
I think we do have problems with adapting FAST enough to what we're assimilating without getting out all the societal kinks and well PROBLEMS that can occur. Isolation is one problem that I think we haven't dealt with well enough. And education on how to just not let go of the good things we had going before we adapted to a newer aspect of modern existence.
You hear a lot about "disconnecting" and "getting back to basics." What does that mean? Why is that desirable? What does this hold for our well-being and what makes it crucial to find/keep/explore? Why meta-ize at all?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 07:13:46 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
It's just different information, and the stresses we put on it.
I mean, if you were living in the Amazon, and you had to deal with an environment that could kill you 50 ways in 10 minutes, every day of your life, you'd consider that a lot of information to process, right?
In some way it gets to the psychology of marketing... people find what the brain naturally is attracted to, and then exploit it. So it's not the amount of information, it's the way that information is presented. And if we learn how our brain works, we can set up meta-barriers to it. Which means we're not dealing with information overload, we're dealing with bastards who are trying to manipulate us.[/i]
Which is not exactly new. Just more clever.
Well, when I spent every day working outside in less than friendly places my brain automatically processed things around me. In those places the world shrinks to a very small place, limiting the amount of processing required.
I'll agree that some aspects of technology haven't been fully explored, such as whether a forum of friends is a psychologically beneficial as a group of people you physically inteact with. But at the same time, you can't just say that "new=bad", and build your argument from that.
Personally, I think that from a psychological standpoint, you fuckers are just as mentally and socially important as the faggots I normally hang out with every weekend*. And I get sick of sociologists who try to make money decrying the collapse of society because of the free flow of information.
But the inability of current society to adapt to new technology, especially beneficial new technology, is not the fault of the tech. It's a problem that the ponderous beast of society has to deal with.
We can bitch about how slow society is to adapt to racial and sexual equality, but we somehow defer when it comes to tech? Use the same criteria, I say.
*No, really. I mostly socialze with homosexuals, lesbians, and queers of all flavors.
I hope I've made no qualitative statement...I am just spouting off in a qualitative, I hope, manner. That's why I left open-ended questions in that one post.
Because truly, as a WOMAN, I'd rather be alive and kicking in THIS day and age, right where I LIVE, than any other time and any other place (though my freedoms in other Westernized societies in the here and now would arguably be much the same). I don't want to go back to killing my own food, making my own clothes or relying on a horseman to deliver my mail on dirt roads.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 06:53:10 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
So are you guys saying that the brain is not evolving to adapt to a new environment?
I am.
Evolution is a process that is marked by centuries, if not millenia, and it involves those that reproduce, and genetic biological change.
What we're talking about here is not the physical structure of the braing changing. It's still a brain, and it looks like a brain of 100 years ago.
It's structural, its been documented in London cab drivers when they study for the cab test (apparently London is a maze, and this is actually a very difficult test as a result). The part of the brain that creates new memories will actually grow when it gets enough work (not through cellular reproduction, the cells themselves become bigger).
As more and more information becomes available, not just from a library but at the tip of people's fingers in nice ADHD friendly formats, more and more people are going to have the same changes occur.
But that is not evolution. Full stop.
Agreed.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 08:07:32 PM
But that is not evolution. Full stop.
Agreed. The malleable of the human brain is the product of evolution... the exercise of that malleability is not.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 03, 2011, 09:48:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 08:07:32 PM
But that is not evolution. Full stop.
Agreed. The malleable of the human brain is the product of evolution... the exercise of that malleability is not.
Technology augments evolution. Information technology especially adds another layer to the already evolved brain. Deep inside you've got the "reptile bit" (correct me if this is pseudoscience but I've heard it so many times I almost believe it) and then, wrapped around that is loads of evolved shit that eventually developed meta-consciousness. Now we augment our rather shoddy and haphazard memory functions with organisers and kick our sense of direction up a gear with gps and satnav. Hell, even our wicked sick grunting skillz are given a whole new dimension with mobile phones and email.
It's nothing new, we've been upgrading natures finest hour ever since Ugg picked up a sharp stick and totally pwned his first dinosaur, it's just that now it happens so fast that nobody even compares it to evolution. Nature would take millions of years to give us sonar just like bats but we were swimming thousands of feet under the ocean and kept bumping into shit so we spent a couple of months making our own sonar instead. The human being, in this day and age, is capable of communicating remotely with humans on the other side of the planet. How do you like them apples mr whale? We can fly, we can travel on land at speeds in excess of 200mph, we can kill an antelope from 2 miles away, just by crooking our index finger.
The evolution bit you're talking about, sure that isn't changing at any noticeable speed but then evolution was rendered utterly irrelevant tens of thousands of years ago. There's a new kid on the block, us, our technology it evolves too. A hell of a lot fucking faster. Our brains don't need to naturally select their way into being able to deal with this shit. We'll be quaffing new chemicals and plugging shit into them a long time before it becomes a problem or, as is more often the case, shortly thereafter .
Quote from: Richter on February 03, 2011, 04:02:33 PM
To OP: Yes. Taking a wide angle view and trying to digest everything new that people figure, re figure, stuble into, or remember would eb like going to a chinese joint every day and ordering everything on the menu...and they make a new menu with new dishes every day.
Some people know an incredible amount about very focused things. I do a little, and folks like Kai do to a really impressive degree. no one specializes in everything at once though.
I agree with this, Richter. There is so much information available and communicated these days. Of course, information was always present, it just wasn't communicated and made available in the same ways and amounts as it used to be. The resulting information overload is like a constant attacker of distraction and apathy that must be countered an equal amount.
The solution to this pollution isn't dilution, it's concentration. Instead of just passively taking in everything, actively choose and limit the information that's attacking, first by eliminating the unnecessary sources, and second by better controlling the necessary ones. The prime example of unnecessary sources is television broadcasting, and if eliminating it makes you worry about just what happened to jill and phil this week, perhaps you should consider whether that is completely unnecessary as well. Necessary sources, like telephone, email, the Internet, and conversation, can't for the most part be eliminated in this modern world unless you want to become a hermit, but they can be limited and filtered, both actively and automatically. I have a series of email folders that any mail in my inbox must make it through before I even am willing to pay attention to it. All the rest gets deleted, immediately, and my inbox is always kept /empty/. Because in this world where most information is completely irrelevant to me or my life, I need ways to figure out what IS relevant and quickly cut the rest out so I can stay focused.
Pent:
1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.
2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.
Quote from: ϗ on February 03, 2011, 11:29:08 PM
Pent:
1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.
2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.
Let me make this clear: In order for natural selection to NOT operate, at least one of the following conditions must be met.
1) The nonexistence of variation. I'm pretty sure the laws of physics deny this from ever happening.
2) Variation must not be inherited from one generation to the next in any form, by any mechanism.
3) Whatever offspring are produced, they must always (always) survive to reproduce OR their deaths must be completely random.
4) The organisms in question are immortal, like, Highlander immortal. Unkillable by any means.
5) Organisms are "spontaneously" generated and do not reproduce.
The above is part of a long term thought experiment I've had with my colleagues. We have yet to discover any situation that could in practicality occur where natural selection would not function, not just on earth, but anywhere in the universe there are replicating homeostatic variants.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
I think that resonates with what Cram said about the nerve-attenuation syndrome.
I definitely think there's a kernel of truth in that. But I believe it works a bit differently. Since ADHD (and related by comorbidity, autism) are both conditions of the brain, it's my belief that those conditions have always (or at least since a long time) existed, but that the recent flood of digital ubiquitous data has changed
the practical consequences of these conditions from what used to be just another character trait, to a syndrome that is actually problematic in our current information overload society.
At least, I believe that's the case for me. Being diagnosed with ADD and some mild sort of autism, I can pinpoint quite clearly, a lot of troubles leading up to my burnout a few years ago, started when I got cable Internet at home, and started to consume information by the truckload. I think I'm addicted, actually. I know it's not good for me, and that I get a lot more done if I manage to stay offline for most off the day, but ... it's a lot like cigarettes or alcohol, "just one more".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 07:13:46 PM
It's just different information, and the stresses we put on it.
I mean, if you were living in the Amazon, and you had to deal with an environment that could kill you 50 ways in 10 minutes, every day of your life, you'd consider that a lot of information to process, right?
I don't know, I've never been in the Amazon, but I think it's different because at least all that information is of the same
kind. The stuff I dump into my brain every day is very different topics. Then again, I'm biased, an Amazon-dweller would probably think my information is all the same kind, and his, well you got different plants, and animals, and day and night time and poison and violence and dehydration and and and :)
QuoteIn some way it gets to the psychology of marketing... people find what the brain naturally is attracted to, and then exploit it. So it's not the amount of information, it's the way that information is presented. And if we learn how our brain works, we can set up meta-barriers to it. Which means we're not dealing with information overload, we're dealing with bastards who are trying to manipulate us.
Which is not exactly new. Just more clever.
Yes. I truly feel this deep in my being, every time I walk in the IKEA.
Somehow I fear it will be much worse when I come to visit the USA, though. OTOH it'll be easier to block out because most of it is foreign and doesnt apply to me.
Quote from: JenneTHAT is a nurture vs. nature debate that is well, sketchy scientifically. For one thing...a lot of ADHD and autism diagnoses are popping up not because people are getting it at a faster rate but because the science behind the diagnosis is changing. So whereas before so-and-so was a "problem child," now they are autistic or have ADD.
Yes. That's another way to say it. But I also think that, for ADHD (dunno about autism), a few decades ago, it wasn't that much of a problem to get by, because, as LMNO said, the psychology of marketing was not as advanced yet to manage to successfully capture your attention all the fucking time. I'd expect people with ADHD to have a lot more trouble dealing with that. Same with the potentially infinite amount of information clickable online.
There are days the collective intelligence of this board makes me feel like a complete moron. In a good way.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 03, 2011, 11:52:46 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 03, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 03, 2011, 07:04:55 PM
I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve. Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors?
I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them. That's new.
So, yes.
I think that resonates with what Cram said about the nerve-attenuation syndrome.
I definitely think there's a kernel of truth in that. But I believe it works a bit differently. Since ADHD (and related by comorbidity, autism) are both conditions of the brain, it's my belief that those conditions have always (or at least since a long time) existed, but that the recent flood of digital ubiquitous data has changed the practical consequences of these conditions from what used to be just another character trait, to a syndrome that is actually problematic in our current information overload society.
I've had the same thought before. I'm sure I'm more ADD than not, but for the most part it doesn't cause problems I can't find a way to work around. Sure, I currently owe about $50k on a few years of taxes I somehow got too distracted to file.. but I've figured out how to work around that one. Now.
The thing which gets me is that I'm pretty sure that fewer kids with ADD end up being doctors. If you can't relate to the bouncy kid who is testing the patience of its parents, you're more likely to medicate to "fix" that kid. This is just self-indulgent supposition, but the thought still makes me angry.
Quote from: ϗ on February 03, 2011, 11:29:08 PM
Pent:
1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.
2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.
Wait. As humans we can see and understand the world around to some degree. We adapt to it, or at least try to. Some adapt faster with less friction. Some ignore it altogether. Some are luke warm about it. Why does evolution require centuries? If everything is speeding up why not evolution?
Hunter-gatherer skills are no longer required by the vast majority. The human race is no longer locked in a test of pure survival. Organizational skills now carry more weight than being a good protector.
Evolution doesn't just mean change, but rather change do to some members of the group reproducing and others not. That takes time, especially for a species as long lived as humans.
Well.. if the average age of first time mothers is now about 25 (in the US) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/14/health/webmd/main5242339.shtml), then isn't that a greater factor in our evolution than our total lifespans? You don't need too many generations before noticeable effects start occurring.
It's now commonplace for people to migrate countries, continents. Not so long ago it was common for people to die within a few miles of where they were born. Now geeks of all flavours self-select over the internet. I have a feeling we're gonna see some interesting mutants in this century.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 12:41:45 AM
Quote from: ϗ on February 03, 2011, 11:29:08 PM
Pent:
1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.
2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.
Wait. As humans we can see and understand the world around to some degree. We adapt to it, or at least try to. Some adapt faster with less friction. Some ignore it altogether. Some are luke warm about it. Why does evolution require centuries? If everything is speeding up why not evolution?
Hunter-gatherer skills are no longer required by the vast majority. The human race is no longer locked in a test of pure survival. Organizational skills now carry more weight than being a good protector.
Evolution can be summarized in one of two ways: 1) Change in gene frequency in a population over time and 2) the selective elimination of individuals and lineages. Adaptation in the form you are using refers not to an evolutionary change in a population that better suits the organisms to their environment, but an acclimatory change, an individual's physiological or behavioral adjustment to changes in their environment. This is why biologists refer to adaptation and acclimation separately, so they don't get confused in conversation.
The changes you refer to above, and most of the changes referred to in this thread, are addressing aclimation. Acclimation, or the ability to acclimate, may very well be an adaptation, but the event of changing physiology or behavior in the individual is not an adaptation.
So, in rewording your above statement:
"As humans we can see and understand the world around to some degree. We acclimate to it, or at least try to. Some acclimate faster with less friction. Some ignore it altogether. Some are luke warm about it."
You can see with the appropriate rewording the statement makes more sense and is not a logical statement that permits the jump to "therefore, why not evolution?", because individual acclimations do not indicate evolutionary changes.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 04, 2011, 02:54:53 AM
Well.. if the average age of first time mothers is now about 25 (in the US) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/14/health/webmd/main5242339.shtml), then isn't that a greater factor in our evolution than our total lifespans? You don't need too many generations before noticeable effects start occurring.
It's now commonplace for people to migrate countries, continents. Not so long ago it was common for people to die within a few miles of where they were born. Now geeks of all flavours self-select over the internet. I have a feeling we're gonna see some interesting mutants in this century.
Okay, it is quite clear that you do not understand the framework on which you are trying to converse within.
Then please enlighten me?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 04, 2011, 04:30:32 AM
Then please enlighten me?
First of all, variation (ie mutation) and it's causes are a completely different topic. Second, why would "geeks" interacting over the internet have anything at all to do with this topic at all, seriously? And third, larger population size and more immigration/emigration leads to more mixing of alleles and tends to stabilize and slow evolutionary changes, not increase them. Fast evolutionary change tends to occur in small isolated populations.
Small isolated populations would seem to describe the situation prior to this period of relatively high immigration/emigration - we have evolved many races with distinctive features, tied to geographical regions. Mixing of alleles may stabilize and slow evolutionary changes overall, but isn't it also the fastest way to spread the changes which have already occurred throughout the wider population? That just describes the creation of another plateau, yes?
It seems to me that you could have less evolutionary change overall, but within that set, higher isolated spikes. E.g. the surge in autism/asperger's cases which have been noted in Silicon Valley. If that occurs between computer geeks, then are jocks creating little hyper-jock babies? What are art lovers spawning? It would seem odd to me if there's a statistical difference in the children of no other flavour of geek than those who show a natural aptitude for computers.
Quote from: ϗ on February 04, 2011, 04:37:39 AM
Second, why would "geeks" interacting over the internet have anything at all to do with this topic at all, seriously?
I mentioned it because the internet gets people laid. It helps people with similar predispositions discover one another, get together, and get it on. Is that insignificant to this discussion?
Quote from: ϗ on February 04, 2011, 04:37:39 AM
First of all, variation (ie mutation) and it's causes are a completely different topic.
I thought we were talking about whether we humans will genetically adapt to our environment, more quickly than with previous adaptations, as a result of favourable selection for individuals who are predisposed towards certain acclimatory changes? Please don't get me started on furries.
Quote from: ϗ on February 03, 2011, 11:29:08 PM
Pent:
1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.
2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.
Yes they are. Please don get me started. You're a biologist, you own the rights to the term "natural selection" but not "evolution", that's something that happens outside biology. Similar principles - things are tried out and the ones that work well stay. This is how the internal combustion engine evolved, the silicone chip evolved, the teevee and the stereo evolved...
For a smart guy you seem to have a real hard time understanding the idea that evolution is a term used in biology, not a biological term. Go look it up in a dictionary kthanx :argh!:
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
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 01:38:22 PM
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.
I disagree. I think the problem is that most examples of evolution, outside of biology do not necessarily meet the criteria of biological evolution. Non-biologists don't have a problem with this. I can, for instance, quite easily agree with the notion of language evolving and most people (I'd guess) would feel the same way but it seems that, if you happen to be knowledgeable in the field of biology, the fact that it didn't take billions of years to happen makes it impossible.
It's a word, like any other, which can be employed to describe a variety of situations which would otherwise involve whole paragraphs of text but, for some reason that pisses me off no end, every time I or someone like me uses it, the whole thread gets derailed into some lecture on darwin, whom I believe only used the bloody thing once, at the arse end of his book.
Quote from: ϗ on February 04, 2011, 04:28:50 AM
Okay, it is quite clear that you do not understand the framework on which you are trying to converse within.
Quote from: ϗ on February 04, 2011, 04:37:39 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 04, 2011, 04:30:32 AM
Then please enlighten me?
First of all, --blablablabla
[/quote]
Hey Kai it would be really nice if you could perhaps skip the condescending remarks and explain wtf you're on about right away.
Cause that's the second time
in this thread you've done that, let alone the how many times in other threads you've told people that dare to mention the word "evolution" they have no idea what they're talking about without giving even as much as a tiny hint to where they are wrong. At this point, I usually have no idea what's wrong with the original statement either, and I bet many people with me. And you know what? That makes me feel like you're being condescending to
me as well, even though I didn't say anything.
Just imagine if I did the same thing every time somebody made a remark about computer algorithms or cryptography or copyright law or internet protocols or whatever subject I generally know more about than most people on this forum. Well, I know I couldn't stand myself, and I wouldn't expect other people to do so either. So instead, I don't flat out tell people they have no idea what they're talking about. Instead I try to guess their level of knowledge and explain why they're wrong, I can write longer or shorter explanations depending on how much time I have, but as soon as I find myself unwilling to expend any more effort than "you obviously have no idea what you're talking about", I keep it to my fucking self, cause I don't want to be that smug asshole with a superiority complex.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 01:38:22 PMP3nt, 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.
The vast majority of current usage? I'm going to call :cn: on that.
There's a shitload of different topics the word "evolution" can be applied to, and according to Kai they're all wrong unless it's biological evolution. Not saying that P3NT's and Capt Utopia's ideas are entirely correct BTW, but all I keep hearing is "evolution doesn't work that way" while what he actually means is "
biological evolution doesn't work that way", which is quite an important distinction to make.
Is the vast majority of current usage of the word "evolution" the following?
Quote from: Kaisummarized in one of two ways: 1) Change in gene frequency in a population over time and 2) the selective elimination of individuals and lineages.
No I didn't fucking think so. If somebody talks about evolution it doesn't necessarily always mean somebody is talking about something involving genes.
If we're gonna be like that, I'm going to interpret "evolution" from now on to mean the
Astronomical meaning of the word, the evolution of galaxies and stars UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG
One example that may convince you, LMNO: Didn't our ideas about Discordianism on this board EVOLVE over the years? Is that esoteric use of language? Not in my book. Does it have ANYTHING to do with genes or biology? Nope, didn't think so either.
In a similar fashion, "evolution" is a perfectly fine term to use in the context of this thread, which is about information and cultural changes, stuff that mostly happened in the past 100 years, which, as far as I know is WAY too short a timescale for biological evolution [related to humans] to do anything noteworthy, meaning that for the purpose of this discussion our hardware is going to have been the same, and that would for me be about everything there is to say about biological evolution related to this topic, so it would actually make MORE sense to me to interpret any mention of the word as to mean ANYTHING BUT biological evolution.
BTW is cultural evolution also an uncommon use of the word? How about linguistic evolution?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 01:51:22 PM
I disagree. I think the problem is that most examples of evolution, outside of biology do not necessarily meet the criteria of biological evolution. Non-biologists don't have a problem with this. I can, for instance, quite easily agree with the notion of language evolving and most people (I'd guess) would feel the same way but it seems that, if you happen to be knowledgeable in the field of biology, the fact that it didn't take billions of years to happen makes it impossible.
It's a word, like any other, which can be employed to describe a variety of situations which would otherwise involve whole paragraphs of text but, for some reason that pisses me off no end, every time I or someone like me uses it, the whole thread gets derailed into some lecture on darwin, whom I believe only used the bloody thing once, at the arse end of his book.
:mittens:
This. P3NT said it in much less words than I did.
Besides, haven't biologists a whole bunch of much more specific words to describe these processes anyway? Maybe they should just stop using the word "evolution" altogether, since its meaning is so unique and special that it applies to nothing else.
To be fair - I specifically was of the contention that we might be able to see actual human evolution on a smaller timescale. Please don't get me started on the Habsburgs! :wink:
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 12:10:39 AM
There are days the collective intelligence of this board makes me feel like a complete moron. In a good way.
THIS!
Let me explain my take on the kind of "evolution" I was talking about when I used the word, because this thread was in danger of becoming interesting to me, until the biology lesson started.
Evolution to me is "development" so I'll use that from here in, in the hope that no more sacred cows are slaughtered (trip - I'm not talking about software development so stay off my back mmkay?) So human beings "developed" from apes or whatever the hell it was and we find ourselves in a position where we got these brain things that are capable of X-ammount of shit. How this developed, up until the birth of technology, was something to do with nature but, since we've begun using technology and the technology, in turn, has been developed, as an extension of our own capabilities the average human being has developed into something more than it was before the tech thing happened.
I understand fully that, if you were to remove all this technology we'd still be, essentially, the same bald monkeys we used to be but, until such a time as that happens, our pace of development is ever increasing.
Right around now (2011ad) we're getting to the point where the biological stuff is already being altered, augmented and even replaced and, over the coming decades, if you want to take the pace of technological advancement as a yardstick, these changes look likely to increase both in frequency and effect, with integration on an increasingly minute level. What I mean by this is that, pretty soon, we'll be using nanotechnology and reverse engineered DNA shenanigans to change the very nature of our physical machinery. Human development is approaching a stage where, instead of things happening the way they did during the monkeys-people phase, sorta haphazardly and slowly, the changes will be made based on choices and by design.
My original point was that we don't have to wait until our biology catches up with our technology, since a subset of our technology will be capable of implementing those changes for us. OP: "Are we discovering more than we can process?" Answer: "No, because one of the things we are discovering is how to increase our capacity to process"
If you were going to go down the Transhumanist path, why didn't you just say so?
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:26:02 PM
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.
Which definition of "process" are you using again?
I'm asking honestly, because my answer depends on what you're really asking.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 04, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:38:14 PM
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?
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 04, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
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."
technology facilitates access to knowledge
and as time goes on, we get better at teaching
nothing transhuman about it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:26:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 04, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 04, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 03:40:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:38:14 PM
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,
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 03:37:10 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 04, 2011, 03:44:40 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 03:59:45 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteOr 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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 01:38:22 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 04, 2011, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 04, 2011, 04:10:45 PM
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteQuoteOr 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!
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 04:25:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
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.
LMAO.
My research on the brain is canceled due to too much and too conflicting information. :lulz:
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 (http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/poway/article_6fd8025d-4033-5eb8-963a-6a8306613df0.html).
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?
Well said, Jenne.
:D 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.
Quote from: Jenne on February 04, 2011, 05:17:50 PM
:D 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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Jenne on February 04, 2011, 05:17:50 PM
:D 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 :lulz:
Wikipedia article: Third International - 4844 words
Wikipedia article: Dragonball Z- 5491 words
:lulz:
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 :mittens: to Jenne!
QuoteAre we discovering more than we can process?
What do you mean "we", white man?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 04, 2011, 06:15:58 PM
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 :mittens: 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.
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 07:59:22 PM
QuoteAre we discovering more than we can process?
What do you mean "we", white man?
Who you calling white?
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
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
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
I've seen the Encyclopedia of Life do the bolded. The problem is, that process is much slower, and there's no guarantee the editor will come through on their task. What ends up happening is that the groups with lots of public appeal, like vertebrates, get added to but people who are experts in the other groups don't contribute because it takes too much effort. While something, anything, would be better than nothing, it ends up being nothing by default. It's faster just to allow open generation, and then come back and eliminate in bits, than limit from the start. I personally would rather be able to edit pages freely and have them reedited than have to submit articles.
A posteriori peer review rather than
a priori, if you will.
Or maybe, looking back, I'm not addressing your point. :/
related, from our old buddy Shii:
http://shii.org/knows/Shii's_Solution_to_the_Problem_of_Wikipedia
tl;dr version - shii identifies the three major problems with wikipedia's model. Which is that it lacks 1. Accountablility 2. Reliability 3. Truth
The solution he suggests is that expert groups or individuals should build their own wikis which they control.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
related, from our old buddy Shii:
http://shii.org/knows/Shii's_Solution_to_the_Problem_of_Wikipedia
tl;dr version - shii identifies the three major problems with wikipedia's model. Which is that it lacks 1. Accountablility 2. Reliability 3. Truth
The solution he suggests is that expert groups or individuals should build their own wikis which they control.
Funny how that's exactly what I'm doing. :lulz:
Edit: In other words, we've come to the same conclusion.
The problem then becomes "how insular is that group". There still needs to be an
a posteriori peer review system. Something I hope to address in my own project.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
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
How very....German of them.
But yes, unofficial wikis with expert staff are proliferating and very easy to set up.
For instance, regardless of what you think of Thomas P Barnett's core-periphery argument (I think it is crap, personally), there is no doubt he has expertise on geopolitics and strategic thinking, and I therefore welcome his Wikistrat project - even if I think making people pay for certain in depth analysis isn't a viable long-term business plan.