←back to thread

647 points bradgessler | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
abathologist ◴[] No.44010933[source]
I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years.

The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they will be automated away.

I don't mean that their jobs will be automated: I mean that they will cede sapience and resign to becoming robotic. A robot is just a "person whose work or activities are entirely mechanical" (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=robot).

I'm afraid far too many are captive to the ideology of productionism (which is just a corollary of consumerism). Creative activity is not about content production. The aim of our creation is communication and mutual-transformation. Generation of digital artifacts may be useful for these purposes, but most uses seem to assume content production is the point, and that is a dark, sad, dead end.

replies(6): >>44011338 #>>44011643 #>>44012297 #>>44012674 #>>44012689 #>>44017606 #
fennecbutt ◴[] No.44011338[source]
99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen.

Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible.

Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

replies(16): >>44011373 #>>44011433 #>>44011440 #>>44011470 #>>44011473 #>>44011609 #>>44011611 #>>44011656 #>>44011742 #>>44011785 #>>44011971 #>>44012311 #>>44012336 #>>44012625 #>>44012927 #>>44018665 #
alganet ◴[] No.44011433[source]
I'm not so sure about it.

Maybe it's like that because there aren't many novel opportunities for varied experiences nowadays.

The pointy ear sounds trivial in our experience, but it is radically different than ordinary everyday thought when observed as a piece of a whole imagined new world.

Of course, pointy ears now are not a novelty anymore. But that's beyond the point. By the time they were conceived, human experience was already homogenized.

The idea space for what an object is has been depleted by exploration. People already tried everything. It's kinda the same thing as saying that is impossible to come up with a new platonic solid (also an idea space that has been exhausted).

Any novel thought is bound to be nameless at first, and it becomes novel by trying to use derivation to define an unknown observation, not as a basis for it.

replies(1): >>44012891 #
1. NobodytheHobbit ◴[] No.44012891[source]
You're trying to expand the human experience instead of individual human experience which is really yours from your perspective and mine from my perspective if I can be redundant by enumerating. The frustration comes from the sacrifice of individual experience to this weird aggregated experience in the machine. It will push the capability of technology but does that service the aim of luxury made easy for the many to acquire as tech is supposed to do? What profit a person to gain the whole world but lose the very thing that makes themselves them? It feels systemically dehumanizing.