That's exactly it; we like to pretend we're some advanced computational AI operating on pure rationality, but we're actually a bag of meat with an inferiority complex. And much of the "unreasonable rules" of society are built around exactly that, and if we abandon those we often have to relearn them again and again.
Recognizing they exist can allow "the boss" to cut the issue short with a "I need to think about this" and de-escalate that way.
Or our brains are tricking us into believing that they are universal knowing machines -- that is anything we cannot know cannot be, and anything that is we are capable of knowing.
>Lacking the ability to distinguish "real" from "unreal" and to distinguish "truth" through primary sensory input would be, at minimum, the characteristic that should spur discussions of rights and law.
By this criterion, many humans would fail the test.
The trick is to accept that we're animals, and that meta-cognition is only a part of the game we're playing. We have to figure out ways to deal with the less expressive and more primitive parts of ourselves that don't respond as well to that "internal voice". Sometimes you just have to count primes and take deep breaths, even if it feels silly.
We hacker/engineering types seem to have an almost visceral rejection of the idea that we are anything less than in total, conscious control of our actions. You see this mostly in reference to advertising ("Oh, I don't see ads, and even when I do, it's not like they affect me").
But the thing is, that's not entirely true. People are not hyper-rational processors of data. We're startlingly susceptible to all sort of subtle manipulation, even when we're fully aware we're being manipulated (See the recent front page link about a guy who was sold $100 dollars in facial cosmetics despite walking in to the situation fully determined to critically analyze the techniques used as a learning experience).
The point I'm trying to say is, yes, you will know you're wearing a headset and yes, you will only have X amount of food in your stomach. But that doesn't mean the subconscious drives that run hunger and satiety (which are far more complex than just "Dry volume of food consumed") can't be tricked by visual stimulus, even visual stimulus the conscious brain knows has been altered.
None of us can. At most we can do some very virtualized logic interpretation, but we are all faulty, emotional-driven “machines”, and even behind the most logical people’s actions the reason is simply they felt that way.
You have an interesting point. If we think we are rational enough to do things according to the right logic, there are still a lot of chances we fail. Most of the case, it's hard to control our body to follow logic because we are not only driven by our brains.
Upvoted. This is something I've thought about as well. My general motto is "We gain nothing by denying the truth," but I've also learned that the mind can sabotage us in very subtle ways. On LessWrong, the idea is that "our brains are untrusted hardware."
Well Banks is careful to point out that the Minds may, as far as we are concerned, be god-like but they can't predict everything (for various reasons, including moral qualms about too perfect simulations of individuals possibly having their own rights) and although they are perfectly capable of reading the state of meat based "minds" they don't do it as it's taboo (hence the "Grey Area").
Edit: The Aritrary says in The State of the Art:
"I'm the smartest thing for a hundred light years radius, and by a factor of about a million... but even I can't predict where a snooker ball's going to end up after more than six collisions."
In a similar position. With human brains, we know some parts are generative and some are restrictive/filtering. The filters seem to be how we align thoughts with reality. Lots of people have taken those filters out and (unfortunately for them) seem to be unable to function or (unfortunately to us) become cult leaders.
The human animal is not cognitively adapted to cope with the world we have built.
It's quite astonishing actually when you realize how all of our tiny individual inputs made this massive machinery that individuals physically cannot truly understand the impacts of.
Ignoring the possibility that people have different physiologies that react to these things differently: We’re not dealing with machines, we’re dealing with humans. If only 5% of people are capable of following the advice then we need to find a better method. It could be any number of things that need to be changed, but just telling people to do x and y the way we currently are clearly isn’t working.
Sadly, there is no difference between the 'clever' person who thinks they're exempt, and the masses of programmed people who (thinks the clever person) passively accept what they're being fed. It's just all people, full stop, so yes they do exist in these vast herd-like numbers, and yes they're vulnerable to being programmed, and yes this is happening and always has.
If there's a difference it's akin to the change from animal power to internal combustion: a difference of degree and mechanic, not the fundamental operation being carried out. But like the change to internal combustion, this change can be pretty revolutionary all the same.
reply