TPOI and Thinking Machines

[krinndnz]

Just two nights ago I had a fairly pleasant evening at the Langton Labs. Lunging into social situations like that is something I should do more often, on balance. I found out about the get-together via circuit_four, who's a friend of raxvulpine and her pal eredien, who are in turn acquainted with baxil. So there was a basis for acquaintance, but precious little. I had a pretty

Comments

[kinkyturtle]

I think you should definitely try. Schools can teach kids how to add and spell, but nobody teaches them how to think. Somebody needs to.

[krinndnz]

Interesting you should say that - this is heavily inspired by a sociology teacher I once studied under.

[kinkyturtle]

Schools can teach kids how to add and spell

Although some of them can't even do that much.

[conrad_zaar]

That was me, dammit. I have a name, just like the rich people.

[eggshellhammer]

See, this sort of thing is why I like you so much.

[krinndnz]

I am flattered and gratified.

[krinndnz]

I'm chagrined. Thank you for repeating this advice at me: it is very good advice and I do, in fact, need it repeated. I actually just had a step forward in my stalled academic career, so I'm struggling to get to a place where I can make better use of the academic part of your recommendation.

I'd appreciate it if you'd email me a subject guide - my LJ username is also my Gmail username.

[ribbin]

Good points, all

[krinndnz]

You make a very good distinction between "thinking" and "reasoning." Thank you. I agree with the distinction, but I'd like to clarify - I meant to portray computers as "thinking machines" in the same way that an electric screwdriver is a "building machine." It's a tool, which is why I made the parallel with pens. I'm looking forward to "machines that are capable of thinking," but right now we haven't got them, just machines that are adjuncts to our own thinking. Naturally, the set of of tools that are available for a task, especially a big abstract one like thinking, change the way that you go about the task and how you think about the task itself. I like how Cory Doctorow and his pals call one's personal data and computer habits the "extended brain."

However, I think you've grasped the essential point of the post, which is that it's a big sloppy love letter to the humanities.

[lhexa]

Thoreau: "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."

And while I'm at it, another quote in lieu of a criticism I can't quite articulate: "It is a ridiculous demand which England and America make, that you shall speak so that they can understand you. Neither men nor toadstools grow so." If your words are to change humanity, to whom should you write?

[krinndnz]

I like the Thoreau quote. Humility is still important, but I'm going to avoid that tangent for now.

About changing humanity: I'm going to basically paraphrase Noam Chomsky here (and continue to do a Chomsky pastiche through the rest of the comment, it works best if you try to read it out loud in his voice). I'm probably going to end up speaking to Americans, because I'm an American and that's who it's easiest for me to speak to, and because America is the modern Rome, it has a very influential and not entirely healthy effect on the rest of the world. Despite a lot of pessimism (mine and others') about the influence of America's citizenry and non-elites on the actions of America as a military and economic actor on the world stage, average Americans can and do have some influence on their government without having to shoot or bribe anyone. So I think that Americans are a good target audience for ideas with which to change the world

[lhexa]

That's, er, an interesting way of misunderstanding my question. I wanted to probe how you think writing in general, and you as a writer specifically, can change humanity (and even that is more specific than asking about changing the world). It's a question with several dimensions for answering.

For what you did say in that direction: the idea of speaking to Americans is one with immediate objections. How can you speak to everybody? Even if you do nothing, or attempt a universal style and audience, social and political factors will pare your audience down and make it, at most, partly representative of Americans. And if you do withhold choice over your audience, is that a tacit agreement to the (usually purposeful, sometimes even conscious) influences which, by determining who reads what, thus control the effects of what is written? There are patterns in the intellectual sphere to who is adopted, who ignored, and who held up for ridicule.

[krinndnz]

At a certain point I did, in fact, just start riffing. Trying again, with the clarification, and holding myself to very short answers this time.

Speak to everybody: Can't, really, which is why one produces a corpus instead of a single work. It's a limitation that you have to live with as a communicator. Many techniques for dealing with it have been developed over time.

Withhold choice: I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase - who's withholding what from whom?

Patterns in the intellectual sphere: I have a passing familiarity of media filters, yes. It's on the list of "these are challenging things that have to be wrestled with." It's not as though one can get anything done by pretending that those factors don't exist.