Telling people to delete Facebook won’t fix the internet
The new DocuDrama on Netflix is all about how the Internet has taken control of peoples' minds - billions of people.
Of course I warned of this as part of the "Actual Matrix Plan" - back in 2001 - and now the global "vaccine" is being unleashed - with great trepidation...as Elon Musk promotes having people microchipped for machine-mind interface...
David Gelertner interview - youtube
So I cite Gelertner in my earlier research - he argued that strong lower emotions have stronger "amplitude" in terms of informational power. Whether this idea was the direct basis for the "social media" algorithms - I don't know - but certainly the gurus have now warned of the SAME phenomenon in action - globally.
So the truth no longer exists as a consensual reality since people using primarily Facebook but also Twitter, Instagram, etc. - are being driven by algorithms predicting their desires based on increasingly sophisticated analysis of all their private data online.
David Gelernter Wants to Kill Facebook; ‘Decolonize’ the Internet
So Gelernter is not a proponent of the singularity but rather argues that the "spectrum of consciousness" - and our subconscious a la Freud - should not be denied. https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_gelernter-dream-logic-the-internet-and-artificial-thought
No computer will be able to think like a man unless it can free-associate.
Emotion is the music, the score or soundtrack, that accompanies life; emotions are as distinctive as musical phrases. Just as a snatch of music might bring to mind some long-ago scene, a re-experienced emotion can make us remember a different time and place.
But here the analogy breaks down. A song or phrase might be associated purely by accident with a certain experience. But an emotion is caused by the experience, and summarizes in one feeling an entire, complex scene. An emotion encodes an experience.
So he thinks consciousness of feelings can be created using his spectrum of informational logic - with the more emotional being more associative logic. So that we make analogies more powerfully based on emotional connections. Tides of Mind talk - at google This is what Gregory Bateson called the "Syllogism of Metaphor" - arguing that is how Nature and Reality works, as well as our brains.
I argue in the book that one could believe that consciousness itself plays a certain role in analogy, in memory, in what you could call Resonance Effects....
So Gelernter doesn't realize that music is the "language" or logic of emotion. Meaning that it's universal and transcultural that the major mode is happy, minor mode is sad and tritone or diminished mode is scary emotion. So it's not just an "accident."
But emotions are produced by brain and body working together. When you feel happy, your body feels a certain way; your mind notices; and the resonance between body and mind produces an emotion. "I say again, that the body makes the mind" (John Donne).
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/theres-enough-time-to-change-everything/517209/
"What makes emotion crucial? We’re capable of assembling two basic kinds of mental sequence, but we tend to ignore one of them. The logical sequence is well-known—we work our ways from some problem or starting point to a solution, explanation, plan of action. This is reasoning, broadly speaking. We assemble ideas using the rules of informal logic. But we also assemble sequences of feelings—sensations and emotions. (Usually such sequences assemble themselves: we enter some new environment and sensations arrive, observations occur to us, and often we respond emotionally.)
Logical ideas tend to be stepping-stones to our mental destination. Feelings, on the other hand, tend to be “translucent”—we can overlay them and see through a whole stack of them, although each element adds some color or special effect to the ensemble. We tend to bring such feelings to bear not one-by-one, stepping-stone-wise, but all at once. Assembling a sequence or a stack of feelings tends to yield one particular, highly-specific feeling—incorporating aspects of many different emotions and sensations. We tend to label memories with particular, specific emotions; some memories consist entirely of a stack of feelings.
How do we decide quickly (using emotion, not analysis or reasoning) that we like some applicant and want to hire him, dislike someone else, like or dislike a book that we’ve barely started, or are fascinated by a sight or a room or house or painting that we’ve only just glanced at? These abilities suggest to many psychologists and philosophers that emotions are a “parallel mind,” alongside the analytical, reasonable mind. But how does the parallel mind work? How do emotions yield judgments so quickly? Judgments we’re often at a loss to explain, except post facto, but that are often right? Say we meet someone, start a book, wander into a forest path, look at a building.
In this new “environment,” our sensations, observations and emotions pile up. Suppose we now examine these feelings all at once, as if we were gazing through a stack of translucent images. If we use this highly-specific, specialized, multi-element feeling as a memory cue, we tend to recall episodes associated with roughly the same set of sensations and emotions. When we pull out of memory a recollection associated with the same sort of feelings we’re experiencing now… it’s natural to apply the outcome or conclusion or analysis we arrived at then. And that’s (in briefest outline) how emotions work as a “parallel mind,” how they lead us to fast conclusions we can’t necessarily explain--but they feel right.
It all depends not on a step-by-step logical sequence but on a step-by-step emotional one. A similar mechanism allows the mind to link together far apart, radically-different memories, which share something deep although they seem to share little or nothing, yielding a brand-new analogy, which in turns yields a mental “restructuring” or a new way to look at things, which in turn yields an original invention or viewpoint. That’s how one important type of creativity works—or at least, how it starts."
So Gelernter realizes that science is a construct based on fads and the Jewish Invention of the West - Western civilization is his talk
on what he really thinks on this topic.
Unfortunately replacing the Jewish People with a simple symbol in the form of one martyred murdered Jew leaves no room for the entity represented by the symbol. That's an old story and a familiar one. Christianity is a dialect of Judaism.
The Anointing of the King - from Judaism - into Europe - led to the creation of the Nation State...
will rescue the world from this dire time that we’re in, where a very small handful of human beings have indescribable power and control, and have manipulated the free market and existing law in order to assume absolute power over information. And make no mistake, they’re not done yet. We must end this madness.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_gelernter-time-to-start-taking-the-internet-seriously
No comments:
Post a Comment