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
"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.
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
, 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
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
Thanks for reading.