←back to thread

721 points bradgessler | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.784s | 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(7): >>44011338 #>>44011643 #>>44012297 #>>44012674 #>>44012689 #>>44017606 #>>44025036 #
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 #
musicale ◴[] No.44011473[source]
> Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen.

I would add a couple of things to that. First, humans (like other animals) have instincts and feelings; even newborns can exhibit varying personality traits as well as fears and desires. It's certainly useful to fear things like spiders, snakes, or abandonment without prior experience.

Second, an important part of experience is inner life - how you personally perceive, feel, and experience things. This may be very different from person to person.

replies(1): >>44011581 #
Andrex ◴[] No.44011581[source]
What really fascinates me is gender based toy preferences at <2 years old. Very consistent that boys like race cars and action figures, even though it's their first exposure.

(I do not participate in culture wars, this fact just straight up fascinates me as a non-masculine gay guy.)

replies(3): >>44012214 #>>44024906 #>>44025954 #
socalgal2 ◴[] No.44012214[source]
I'd be curious how we know they aren't exposed - 1 year is a long time to see TV shows, TV commercials, toys with pictures of target audience, picture books, etc...
replies(1): >>44014140 #
1. gitremote ◴[] No.44014140[source]
Cars were invented in the early 1900s and the vast majority of human existence was in a world without cars. There cannot be an innate preference for cars, which were a very recent invention.
replies(2): >>44024961 #>>44025976 #
2. musicale ◴[] No.44024961[source]
Toy cars (tiny wheeled carts) date back at least 5000 years, but tools/technology date to the dawn of humanity.
replies(1): >>44025282 #
3. gitremote ◴[] No.44025282[source]
The spinning wheel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_wheel), which creates yarn from threads, existed longer than cars. I doubt you would argue that boys would have a preference for playing with toy versions these wheeled tools, given that women in various Western and Eastern cultures were the main users of these tools.
4. socalgal2 ◴[] No.44025976[source]
so you're agreeing with me that any preference seen is probably from exposure and not innate like the studies claim?