Some mostly random thoughts; but first, if you’re still interested in the subject of consciousness, I just finished one of the most insightful and thought provoking books. Recently Published, the Hidden Spring by Mark Solms is very much worth a read.
Thinking out loud:
“In the same way that, for example, those virus particles in your own body must be (a) detected by someone else (b) who tells you about their presence”
Probably not the best analogy ….it also happens that we might feel the result of the virus.
“After all, people do not come into contact with all kinds of societal issues themselves, but inform themselves through media channels”.
...we tend to believe what our tribe, ie close social network believes. This is a key point.
“Nowadays, anyone with a cell phone can (a) document facts,”
But not context. Context is required to translate facts (data) into information.
Knowledge and information probably aren’t the same thing. Knowledge = internalized, or ‘understood’ information.
“The price of information is no longer money, but attention and personal data.”
Yes!
Do you think that over time we will evolve to a more Bayesian approach to evaluating “news”. Or are we already Bayesian enough? Ie evaluating a news item in the context of our prior knowledge of the state of the world.
“So: online platforms reward messages that spread instantly and widely with even more visibility.”
A kind of Darwinian survival mechanism.
“It gets worse. A study comparing 126,000 messages on Twitter showed that false messages spread faster and further on Twitter. It took the “truth” about six times as long as “falsehood” to reach 1,500 people on Twitter.”
Maybe a kind of a large numbers kind of thing. Lots more ways to create fiction than the truth. But context matters, if aliens landed on the White House lawn, which would spread faster? The truth, or the falsehood that aliens did not in fact land on the white House lawn?
“As soon as a medium delivers too much of that kind of content, its reputation decreases and people stop consuming and sharing its articles.”
Thanks for the book rec, I've added it to the list!
- Fair point. But when you feel it, you're still not sure whether it's the flu or covid that's making you cough etc.
- I don't know about the more Bayesian approach for evaluating news. Would be a good thing for sure! But most people don't really evaluate news, except by how well the presentor was dressed! Also in most cases you probably lack the object-level knowledge to really do so.
And, on second thought, Bayesian thing is more like: how probable is this information given my prior beliefs? But say CNN reports the thing about the aliens. Something very unlikely given your current model. So your Bayesian output says "roll to disbelieve". But probably you'll still believe it because you trust CNN and they have pictures etc. Trust/source > output of own Bayesian reasoning. Do you see what I mean?
- Glad the Darwinian survival thing got through! That was what I had in mind. Or rather, it's what I think the people who worry about the consequences algorithmic selection think.
Great hear from you. Hope all is well.
Interesting read, I’m persuaded!
Some mostly random thoughts; but first, if you’re still interested in the subject of consciousness, I just finished one of the most insightful and thought provoking books. Recently Published, the Hidden Spring by Mark Solms is very much worth a read.
Thinking out loud:
“In the same way that, for example, those virus particles in your own body must be (a) detected by someone else (b) who tells you about their presence”
Probably not the best analogy ….it also happens that we might feel the result of the virus.
“After all, people do not come into contact with all kinds of societal issues themselves, but inform themselves through media channels”.
...we tend to believe what our tribe, ie close social network believes. This is a key point.
“Nowadays, anyone with a cell phone can (a) document facts,”
But not context. Context is required to translate facts (data) into information.
Knowledge and information probably aren’t the same thing. Knowledge = internalized, or ‘understood’ information.
“The price of information is no longer money, but attention and personal data.”
Yes!
Do you think that over time we will evolve to a more Bayesian approach to evaluating “news”. Or are we already Bayesian enough? Ie evaluating a news item in the context of our prior knowledge of the state of the world.
“So: online platforms reward messages that spread instantly and widely with even more visibility.”
A kind of Darwinian survival mechanism.
“It gets worse. A study comparing 126,000 messages on Twitter showed that false messages spread faster and further on Twitter. It took the “truth” about six times as long as “falsehood” to reach 1,500 people on Twitter.”
Maybe a kind of a large numbers kind of thing. Lots more ways to create fiction than the truth. But context matters, if aliens landed on the White House lawn, which would spread faster? The truth, or the falsehood that aliens did not in fact land on the white House lawn?
“As soon as a medium delivers too much of that kind of content, its reputation decreases and people stop consuming and sharing its articles.”
Great point.
Likewise!
Thanks for the book rec, I've added it to the list!
- Fair point. But when you feel it, you're still not sure whether it's the flu or covid that's making you cough etc.
- I don't know about the more Bayesian approach for evaluating news. Would be a good thing for sure! But most people don't really evaluate news, except by how well the presentor was dressed! Also in most cases you probably lack the object-level knowledge to really do so.
And, on second thought, Bayesian thing is more like: how probable is this information given my prior beliefs? But say CNN reports the thing about the aliens. Something very unlikely given your current model. So your Bayesian output says "roll to disbelieve". But probably you'll still believe it because you trust CNN and they have pictures etc. Trust/source > output of own Bayesian reasoning. Do you see what I mean?
- Glad the Darwinian survival thing got through! That was what I had in mind. Or rather, it's what I think the people who worry about the consequences algorithmic selection think.