Gio wrote: ↑17 Jun 2019, 13:18
There is a clear hardship in
estabilishing rational communication with our peers [...]
Gio wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 11:13
[...]from our limited knowledge
about the inner workings of the brain (and how it has been translated to our theories about Artificial Neural Networks) i would say that this is actually to be expected: While
inputs can be the very same [...]
Gio wrote: ↑13 Jun 2019, 10:44
If a debate
draws two opposing sides around a particularly complex subject,[...]
For that specific reason, i think that debates are usually more productive when correctly organized and
mediated [...]
(my italic)
"Peer to peer" has been transposed unaltered in French ("pair à pair" is, from my experience, very little used).
Yet all of a sudden I'm now surprised that programmers find nothing to complain about the lack of consideration on
technical devices, systems, facilities, infrastructures and
how they are collectively socialized and individualized.
I have trouble to figure it out things clearly here but I will try to go further.
@Gio It seems to me that you don't take into account the fact that inputs are
coded. I have in mind here not only the irreducible
linguistic aspect of the world we're living in, but the fact that one are increasingly producing, consuming, sharing, exchanging reproductible
digitalized meaningful structures (such as .ahk scripts, mp4 videos, gif pictures
etc.) on the let's say
network.
-
Facebook, for example, does not appear to be also one of the largest consensus factories ? (
e.g.: produced, consumed, shared and exchanged aestheticized banners with quotes of writers, sages, scholars
etc. where everyone-that-is-no-one could accept, identify itself, revive a tragically evanescent desire to love
etc.).
- Also, in contrast, is it not true that venal
media like binary oppositions, easy to grip, more telegenic?
You're talking about the brain, the "
neural network" Gio - to be honest, I have almost no idea what this is about: my knowledge here, unfortunately, is almost equal to zero. At first sight, this sounds to me - and my so french obsession with freedom - like a
dispossession: mind "is" simply a
thing, housed in a skull box. But, precisely, if I look at it a second time more carefully, I can't help but see this merely neural network paradoxically as a jealously guarded ownership,
possession - rather than an actual and tragically lived, negated somehow and with faith, alienation.
Yet, as I suggested above, knowledge, memories are also nowadays on the
outer network (on
wikipedia, travel pictures on one's
google drive etc.).
Actually, one could ask: this merely neural network, even modified by adding to it a mysterious random component to make it look like, I don't know, the epicurean
clinamen - is it someone's network, or, better, the one we - and especially:
digital natives - are actually?
In this lies all the bad faith of neurological scientism as I see it: its dispossession actually hides a reassuring possessiveness for a coddled brain, microcosm, purportedly housed in
my skull box. It would also hides in this case, and more importantly, the real dispossession which is at stake (I would say dispossession for better or for worse, undoubtedly).
As an example, instead of quoting from
your memory a book that you read long time ago and that almost no one will bother to read nowadays, didn't you rather
link to illustrate your idea a recently added video
on youtube which many have perhaps compulsively added to their own accumulation of
possessive bookmarks to "look at it later"?
So, what I'm trying to say here is that it will be very difficult to explain consensus and dissensus if we want to explain them from
neural networks.
Thanks for reading.