The Atlantic suggests that, at least, one person in Silly Valley has a conscience: The Binge Breaker. Tristan Harris, actually, discusses people playing humans as if on a line. This makes Zack's little experiments look amateur.
Several places, I have cautioned that Silly Valley is enmeshing us in a very ominous manner. To them, it is just fair game in the unicorn environment. No one of them wants to be (seen as) a loser.
Human dignity? Went out the window, evidently.
Here, I have argued that man-in-the-loop will become (continue to be) of importance in anything dealing with truth and complexity. That approach goes against the grain that has been honed for the past 200 years.
10/31/2016 -- Being on Quora for the past year helped develop the sense of how to address the need for truth engineering. Devices play a major part. Differences in presentation related to devices do so, as well. Lots to look at. ... IEEE weighed in, long ago. This statement is not a conflation, rather we really need to reassess what we think of people and mind.
In another context, there was discussion about phenomena that is particular to humans. You now, consciousness is one. There are several.
Now, limiting the discussion to a few, we can start to deal with some issues that seem to generate a whole lot of angst. The sides of the arguments split with a wide gap.
Essentially, we are going to argue that nature does not deal with truth. Nature is, just like we are. What has happened is that humans have truth engineered over the eons that we have been around.
And, since the computational progress has accelerated, we find ourselves in a bind (actually, several binds). Computers deal with truth; it's at its core. So, we now have a cloud that is becoming increasingly muddy. Why? No one is really looking at this beyond local views.
But, is there one of greater extent? Ah. Yes. Does that necessitate that we bring in the metaphysical aspects of so much controversy? Well. Not really.
The approach rests upon using psychether as the operational basis. How can this be? That, pray tell, is the main thing to work on and use to advance the importance of truth engineering.
Truth deals with viewpoints. When we need to assess truth in a processing sense, viewpoints would help set control, such as with parameters, filters, and so forth.
Today, I happened upon Beck's book, having to do with "pants on fire." Normally, I would not have paid attention to the book, however there were none other available to me at the time. Besides, I have always randomly chosen books to read. As well, these times are not normal (or so it might seem).
Well, in his book, Glenn was writing about progressives (a Wikipedia page: Progressivism). I took note of some historical references. For instance, he mentioned Phillip Berrigan who was well known, with his brother, as a peace activist, especially during the Vietnam War. Glenn devotes space to Phillip's experiences during the Battle of the Bulge. He touches upon Hegel and others.
The idea of the book is to lay out how the elites are those who reign, not that we don't see the same sort of thing with the other side of the fence. What caught my eye was the quiz. Here it is.
The questions are phrased so as a high score would put you in that group. What ought to interest us is that there are many discussion that could be had with each of these questions. Too, some of that analysis might lead to a middle position. The scoring allows for that with a range from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders.
Neither of these names need explanation in the U.S., given the times.
What is impressive is Glenn's collection of notes. I'll give him a lot of credit on that.
In this day of technology, I wonder if we might see some supposed smart system rating people with quizzes like this. Then, you would get your badge for the day.
I'll take being accused of getting up on the wrong side of the bed, anytime, to such an quizzical endeavor.
Back to Glenn, though. I don't know if he understands Hegel. At the very least, Glen misconstrues what Hegel was about.
Our first post was in 2007. It asked if truth could be engineered. We know what engineering is, for the most part. That is, schools of engineering abound with a curriculum that we can see. Too, though, engineering is large than that, in the sense of being applied science.
Engineers do, solve problems, make things, improve our lives, and an endless number of things. Too, they generate, whether by design or not, lots of experiments, from which we can learn.
Of late, engineering has been applied to finance. How is that, we have to wonder. On what science is such engineering based? Well, if you look closely, the views of this discipline seem to be searching for perpetual motion. The physicists running after money seem to have forgotten their basics.
Then, we have computation being put upon us pervasively. Everywhere. Many times, this is just due to some notion of youngsters who are looking to make money. You see, money has taken some type of prominence in the definition of truth.
Bigger pockets rule. Is that so? Essentially, we are at a crux, but that state of affairs is nothing new. It is that now we are dealing with the grand kids of the boomers, not the boomers themselves. Watch out, world.
There would be a lot more to say to make this a real recap, but being brief does have some appeal.
This has a nice ring. It is not new, however until now, I found no applicability. The advent of Deep Learning (DL)'s prowess is one motivation for looking again.
The "Church" statement (first attributable to John A. Smolin) deals with quantum information theory. DL is fostering both mania and hysteria related to the unknown, unbounded potential for computing and for us losing control of our artifacts.
One could think of several churches. Wouldn't that be fun?