Are we entering the Post-Cognitive Age?

B

bundee1

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
How do you know my ego is fragile? When did I write anything about your age?

And, what is the point of you insulting me over and over and over? What does that do for you? How does it advance your cause? How does it advance your affinity for a thoughtless society?

Why are you opposed to thinking? What has thinking ever done to damage you or hurt you?
Click to expand...
Laughed at him in 3rd grade when he couldn't answer what 3x6 was.
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
How do you know my ego is fragile? When did I write anything about your age?

And, what is the point of you insulting me over and over and over? What does that do for you? How does it advance your cause? How does it advance your affinity for a thoughtless society?

Why are you opposed to thinking? What has thinking ever done to damage you or hurt you?
Click to expand...
So many questions.

Thank you for an entertaining morning!

You are smart and cool. Chicks dig you. :wink:
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
I bet you don't get out much; you know, with people.
They are dumb, after all.

A really good psychiatrist might be able to help with your social skills.

Maybe...
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
I see that it makes you feel good about yourself and is entertainment for you to go online and insult strangers without reason or cause.
Click to expand...
So much for funny. :|

Do you also have multiple personality disorder?

Maybe someone should write a thesis about you. :roll:

Have you ever been in a loving relationship that was not incestuous?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
How do you know my ego is fragile? When did I write anything about your age?

And, what is the point of you insulting me over and over and over? What does that do for you? How does it advance your cause? How does it advance your affinity for a thoughtless society?

Why are you opposed to thinking? What has thinking ever done to damage you or hurt you?
Click to expand...
He jealous because he can't.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
That's what you did lumping all new technology users together as less cognitive than you.
Click to expand...
So this is what I've been writing about on this thread--how social media and message board users misrepresent the opinions of others because they're more and more incapable of thinking about the meaning of words. If you were to actually read my posts on this thread instead of just following the fecal freak stool guy's unsubstantiated opinions, then you'd see that your statement quoted above cannot be found in any of my posts.

I've been arguing that humanity is entering, or we're at the inception of, a new age. Historians classify human ages in history based on the tools humans have used. For example, very early humans who figured out how to shape stones into tools were part of the Stone Age. Later in human history, during the 1800s when many countries began relying on steam power and other engines to mass produce items was called the Industrial Age. More recently, humans' reliance on nuclear power and defense has been called the Nuclear Age.

I'm saying that based on our tools--smart tech and other forms of automation--is rendering human thought obsolete. I am not saying I'm smarter than anyone, and as far as I go, I'm part of the post-cognitive age myself. We all are, whether we're Americans or Chinese or Canadians.

So I'll repeat my major claim again--technology has advanced to the point that human beings now have a choice--to think or not to think (because tech devices think for us). Given that choice, most humans (not all), will go for the latter choice--to not think. This post-cognition among humans groups can be readily seen in the present day--and I'm arguing that thought will become less and less, fewer and further between as long as tech continues its advances.

So here's what I'm seeing as evidence of the post-cognitive age:
1) automation, especially in countries that mass produce things. Automation means that the human worker at such manufacturing centers merely monitors machines that does the work--machines apply the plans or blueprints instead of a human having to think to do the same.
2) smart tech such as tablets, smart phones, apps: many of these are increasing taking the thought component out of using them. My phone, for example, tells me how long it'll take for me to get home, or two work. It knows where I'm going, and I don't have to think about how long it'll take me.
- apps too take the thinking component out of human activity, for example my directions app. Previously, whenever I needed directions to get somewhere, I had to memorize them, which requires cognition. Nowadays, if I plug in the address, Siri tells me how to get there, and I don't have to think.
- websites as well do the thinking for us. Here's probably a bad example, but the last time you were watching TV and you see an actor, and you know you saw the same actor in another movie. Instead of thinking about it, you just go to IMDB and it displays all the movies and programs the actor has appeared in and thinking is rendered obsolete.
3) Internet technology is an amazing tool for knowledge dissemination, but given the choice to use it for enhancing knowledge and its by-product, cognition, most human beings today choose to use the internet for entertainment purposes. Here are some of those entertainment choices:
a. porn
b. social media & forums (where people don't think about what others write, but instead offer either unsubstantiated opinions about what was written or who did the writing, or just insult the writer)
c. sports
4) lack of debate: back in the old days, when people shared ideas with one another, usually a discussion or debate would ensue. Today, whether on television or online, there's little discussion and debate. Since these things require cognition to do them and to follow a discussion or debate, people instead opt to shout down opponents, offer insults, etc. Politicians just offer slogans. News just repeats sound bytes, unless the "news" program is a shout show, then it offers only shouts.
5) education in crisis: just about everything one needs to know about culture, society, and how to live can be accessed online, yet educational centers, whether higher ed or charter schools or whathaveyou, are locked into the old ways of doing things. Why does anyone need to learn arithmetic when machines can compute numbers for us? Why would anyone need a history class when all histories of anything can be found at a moment's notice online?
-- another element here is the growing disdain and disparagement of those who are educated. More and more, most people view the educated as "pompous." When the educated write, more and more folks see that as "grandstanding." Instead of thinking about what educated people are saying, people just dismiss it because there's less and less patience for intelligence and people using their inherent cognitive tools.
6) de-evolution of language: more and more, we'll see language devolve into strings of emojis. If you know a youngster, say under 18 years of age, this is already occurring among them. Language requires thought, and if language devolves to a series of pictograms, then cognition suffers as a result.
7) dichotomous thinking replaces real cognition: This affects us in multiple ways. When something is wrong with one of our devices, whether the computer itself or the app--the quickest possible solution is to turn it off and then back on again and see if that fixes it. Instead of diagnosing what the problem may be, we just shut it off and turn it back on. Or close the program and reopen it. Or more broadly, it seems that humans are growing overly skeptical of inductive reasoning, which relies on viewing evidence to see if something is likely the case. More and more humans think that deduction can give us Truth on every aspect of the human experience.
-- dichotomies are either/or kind of thinking. For example, "you're either with us or against us." Things are either true or untrue, factual or fictitious, black or white--there aren't any gray areas, or at least humans are becoming ever more reluctant to acknowledge that things in the human experience can exist in those gray areas. When we fail to explore gray areas of our knowledge or of our experience, we are ceasing cognition.
8 ) Reactionary politics: coupled with humans increasing inability to debate and consider viewpoints of others, more and more societies are dealing with newfound power of reactionary forces. Many right wing regimes have taken over Western nations built on their knee-jerk reactions to issues. Instead of forming coalitions, seeking out data sets, and commissioning studies, reactionary political figures merely react to what's going on. So the Washington Post publishes a story about possible wrongdoing, and the regime just dismisses it as "fake news." This is the approach for many of the issue that bedevil our societies. Immigrants--just get rid of them; people without health insurance--just let them die; enemies overseas are doing things--just bomb them into oblivion; weed is legal in certain places--let's crackdown on it; jobs are vanishing--let's deport people. I could go on and on with that.

So these are some of the main areas where I see that we've entered or at the onset of a post-cognitive age. And this is an important issue because when humanity ceases to think, then there's not much separating us from animal life. in fact, what distinguishes humanity from animals is our cognitive abilities.

Now I'm not saying that I'm right. All of this is a gray area where inductive reasoning is more applicable. I'm instead making an argument for something that I see going on in my society, and I'm attempting to offer an explanation--or at least I'm acknowledging that our technology is quickly altering not just our human values, but core elements of our humanity: thinking. And nowhere in this post or any others are any claims made by me that I'm smarter than anyone or that using tech makes you dumb.

To reiterate my major claim, I'm merely saying that tech advances are providing humans with a choice, to think or not to think and too many people are choosing the latter. Feel free to disagree with me, that is fine, but I'd prefer you tell me why I'm wrong because an insult or a misrepresentation doesn't get us anywhere and instead just underscores my argument that more and more folks would rather not have to think.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
So this is what I've been writing about on this thread--how social media and message board users misrepresent the opinions of others because they're more and more incapable of thinking about the meaning of words. If you were to actually read my posts on this thread instead of just following the fecal freak stool guy's unsubstantiated opinions, then you'd see that your statement quoted above cannot be found in any of my posts.

I've been arguing that humanity is entering, or we're at the inception of, a new age. Historians classify human ages in history based on the tools humans have used. For example, very early humans who figured out how to shape stones into tools were part of the Stone Age. Later in human history, during the 1800s when many countries began relying on steam power and other engines to mass produce items was called the Industrial Age. More recently, humans' reliance on nuclear power and defense has been called the Nuclear Age.

I'm saying that based on our tools--smart tech and other forms of automation--is rendering human thought obsolete. I am not saying I'm smarter than anyone, and as far as I go, I'm part of the post-cognitive age myself. We all are, whether we're Americans or Chinese or Canadians.

So I'll repeat my major claim again--technology has advanced to the point that human beings now have a choice--to think or not to think (because tech devices think for us). Given that choice, most humans (not all), will go for the latter choice--to not think. This post-cognition among humans groups can be readily seen in the present day--and I'm arguing that thought will become less and less, fewer and further between as long as tech continues its advances.

So here's what I'm seeing as evidence of the post-cognitive age:
1) automation, especially in countries that mass produce things. Automation means that the human worker at such manufacturing centers merely monitors machines that does the work--machines apply the plans or blueprints instead of a human having to think to do the same.
2) smart tech such as tablets, smart phones, apps: many of these are increasing taking the thought component out of using them. My phone, for example, tells me how long it'll take for me to get home, or two work. It knows where I'm going, and I don't have to think about how long it'll take me.
- apps too take the thinking component out of human activity, for example my directions app. Previously, whenever I needed directions to get somewhere, I had to memorize them, which requires cognition. Nowadays, if I plug in the address, Siri tells me how to get there, and I don't have to think.
- websites as well do the thinking for us. Here's probably a bad example, but the last time you were watching TV and you see an actor, and you know you saw the same actor in another movie. Instead of thinking about it, you just go to IMDB and it displays all the movies and programs the actor has appeared in and thinking is rendered obsolete.
3) Internet technology is an amazing tool for knowledge dissemination, but given the choice to use it for enhancing knowledge and its by-product, cognition, most human beings today choose to use the internet for entertainment purposes. Here are some of those entertainment choices:
a. porn
b. social media & forums (where people don't think about what others write, but instead offer either unsubstantiated opinions about what was written or who did the writing, or just insult the writer)
c. sports
4) lack of debate: back in the old days, when people shared ideas with one another, usually a discussion or debate would ensue. Today, whether on television or online, there's little discussion and debate. Since these things require cognition to do them and to follow a discussion or debate, people instead opt to shout down opponents, offer insults, etc. Politicians just offer slogans. News just repeats sound bytes, unless the "news" program is a shout show, then it offers only shouts.
5) education in crisis: just about everything one needs to know about culture, society, and how to live can be accessed online, yet educational centers, whether higher ed or charter schools or whathaveyou, are locked into the old ways of doing things. Why does anyone need to learn arithmetic when machines can compute numbers for us? Why would anyone need a history class when all histories of anything can be found at a moment's notice online?
-- another element here is the growing disdain and disparagement of those who are educated. More and more, most people view the educated as "pompous." When the educated write, more and more folks see that as "grandstanding." Instead of thinking about what educated people are saying, people just dismiss it because there's less and less patience for intelligence and people using their inherent cognitive tools.
6) de-evolution of language: more and more, we'll see language devolve into strings of emojis. If you know a youngster, say under 18 years of age, this is already occurring among them. Language requires thought, and if language devolves to a series of pictograms, then cognition suffers as a result.
7) dichotomous thinking replaces real cognition: This affects us in multiple ways. When something is wrong with one of our devices, whether the computer itself or the app--the quickest possible solution is to turn it off and then back on again and see if that fixes it. Instead of diagnosing what the problem may be, we just shut it off and turn it back on. Or close the program and reopen it. Or more broadly, it seems that humans are growing overly skeptical of inductive reasoning, which relies on viewing evidence to see if something is likely the case. More and more humans think that deduction can give us Truth on every aspect of the human experience.
-- dichotomies are either/or kind of thinking. For example, "you're either with us or against us." Things are either true or untrue, factual or fictitious, black or white--there aren't any gray areas, or at least humans are becoming ever more reluctant to acknowledge that things in the human experience can exist in those gray areas. When we fail to explore gray areas of our knowledge or of our experience, we are ceasing cognition.
8) Reactionary politics: coupled with humans increasing inability to debate and consider viewpoints of others, more and more societies are dealing with newfound power of reactionary forces. Many right wing regimes have taken over Western nations built on their knee-jerk reactions to issues. Instead of forming coalitions, seeking out data sets, and commissioning studies, reactionary political figures merely react to what's going on. So the Washington Post publishes a story about possible wrongdoing, and the regime just dismisses it as "fake news." This is the approach for many of the issue that bedevil our societies. Immigrants--just get rid of them; people without health insurance--just let them die; enemies overseas are doing things--just bomb them into oblivion; weed is legal in certain places--let's crackdown on it; jobs are vanishing--let's deport people. I could go on and on with that.

So these are some of the main areas where I see that we've entered or at the onset of a post-cognitive age. And this is an important issue because when humanity ceases to think, then there's not much separating us from animal life. in fact, what distinguishes humanity from animals is our cognitive abilities.

Now I'm not saying that I'm right. All of this is a gray area where inductive reasoning is more applicable. I'm instead making an argument for something that I see going on in my society, and I'm attempting to offer an explanation--or at least I'm acknowledging that our technology is quickly altering not just our human values, but core elements of our humanity: thinking. And nowhere in this post or any others are any claims made by me that I'm smarter than anyone or that using tech makes you dumb.

To reiterate my major claim, I'm merely saying that tech advances are providing humans with a choice, to think or not to think and too many people are choosing the latter. Feel free to disagree with me, that is fine, but I'd prefer you tell me why I'm wrong because an insult or a misrepresentation doesn't get us anywhere and instead just underscores my argument that more and more folks would rather not have to think.
Click to expand...

Now you're being even more condescending. Why are you assuming I am following someone else's comments rather than reading the thread?

I understand your ideas and I come from a family that promotes higher education and is very successful. Even my young niece is more into Art and music and writing than Facebook.

But you are still lumping and labeling and yes being quite condescending in your approach.

Not all young people act in the way you propose. And not all students or even people are afraid of critical thinking. Or will in the future.

And it has always been the way you say it is going to be now. Just with different distractions. And in different degrees.

Don't you remember when everyone just vegged in front of the tv and stabbed the remote over and over?

People adapt to technology. Not the other way around.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
So this is what I've been writing about on this thread--how social media and message board users misrepresent the opinions of others because they're more and more incapable of thinking about the meaning of words. If you were to actually read my posts on this thread instead of just following the fecal freak stool guy's unsubstantiated opinions, then you'd see that your statement quoted above cannot be found in any of my posts.

I've been arguing that humanity is entering, or we're at the inception of, a new age. Historians classify human ages in history based on the tools humans have used. For example, very early humans who figured out how to shape stones into tools were part of the Stone Age. Later in human history, during the 1800s when many countries began relying on steam power and other engines to mass produce items was called the Industrial Age. More recently, humans' reliance on nuclear power and defense has been called the Nuclear Age.

I'm saying that based on our tools--smart tech and other forms of automation--is rendering human thought obsolete. I am not saying I'm smarter than anyone, and as far as I go, I'm part of the post-cognitive age myself. We all are, whether we're Americans or Chinese or Canadians.

So I'll repeat my major claim again--technology has advanced to the point that human beings now have a choice--to think or not to think (because tech devices think for us). Given that choice, most humans (not all), will go for the latter choice--to not think. This post-cognition among humans groups can be readily seen in the present day--and I'm arguing that thought will become less and less, fewer and further between as long as tech continues its advances.

So here's what I'm seeing as evidence of the post-cognitive age:
1) automation, especially in countries that mass produce things. Automation means that the human worker at such manufacturing centers merely monitors machines that does the work--machines apply the plans or blueprints instead of a human having to think to do the same.
2) smart tech such as tablets, smart phones, apps: many of these are increasing taking the thought component out of using them. My phone, for example, tells me how long it'll take for me to get home, or two work. It knows where I'm going, and I don't have to think about how long it'll take me.
- apps too take the thinking component out of human activity, for example my directions app. Previously, whenever I needed directions to get somewhere, I had to memorize them, which requires cognition. Nowadays, if I plug in the address, Siri tells me how to get there, and I don't have to think.
- websites as well do the thinking for us. Here's probably a bad example, but the last time you were watching TV and you see an actor, and you know you saw the same actor in another movie. Instead of thinking about it, you just go to IMDB and it displays all the movies and programs the actor has appeared in and thinking is rendered obsolete.
3) Internet technology is an amazing tool for knowledge dissemination, but given the choice to use it for enhancing knowledge and its by-product, cognition, most human beings today choose to use the internet for entertainment purposes. Here are some of those entertainment choices:
a. porn
b. social media & forums (where people don't think about what others write, but instead offer either unsubstantiated opinions about what was written or who did the writing, or just insult the writer)
c. sports
4) lack of debate: back in the old days, when people shared ideas with one another, usually a discussion or debate would ensue. Today, whether on television or online, there's little discussion and debate. Since these things require cognition to do them and to follow a discussion or debate, people instead opt to shout down opponents, offer insults, etc. Politicians just offer slogans. News just repeats sound bytes, unless the "news" program is a shout show, then it offers only shouts.
5) education in crisis: just about everything one needs to know about culture, society, and how to live can be accessed online, yet educational centers, whether higher ed or charter schools or whathaveyou, are locked into the old ways of doing things. Why does anyone need to learn arithmetic when machines can compute numbers for us? Why would anyone need a history class when all histories of anything can be found at a moment's notice online?
-- another element here is the growing disdain and disparagement of those who are educated. More and more, most people view the educated as "pompous." When the educated write, more and more folks see that as "grandstanding." Instead of thinking about what educated people are saying, people just dismiss it because there's less and less patience for intelligence and people using their inherent cognitive tools.
6) de-evolution of language: more and more, we'll see language devolve into strings of emojis. If you know a youngster, say under 18 years of age, this is already occurring among them. Language requires thought, and if language devolves to a series of pictograms, then cognition suffers as a result.
7) dichotomous thinking replaces real cognition: This affects us in multiple ways. When something is wrong with one of our devices, whether the computer itself or the app--the quickest possible solution is to turn it off and then back on again and see if that fixes it. Instead of diagnosing what the problem may be, we just shut it off and turn it back on. Or close the program and reopen it. Or more broadly, it seems that humans are growing overly skeptical of inductive reasoning, which relies on viewing evidence to see if something is likely the case. More and more humans think that deduction can give us Truth on every aspect of the human experience.
-- dichotomies are either/or kind of thinking. For example, "you're either with us or against us." Things are either true or untrue, factual or fictitious, black or white--there aren't any gray areas, or at least humans are becoming ever more reluctant to acknowledge that things in the human experience can exist in those gray areas. When we fail to explore gray areas of our knowledge or of our experience, we are ceasing cognition.
8) Reactionary politics: coupled with humans increasing inability to debate and consider viewpoints of others, more and more societies are dealing with newfound power of reactionary forces. Many right wing regimes have taken over Western nations built on their knee-jerk reactions to issues. Instead of forming coalitions, seeking out data sets, and commissioning studies, reactionary political figures merely react to what's going on. So the Washington Post publishes a story about possible wrongdoing, and the regime just dismisses it as "fake news." This is the approach for many of the issue that bedevil our societies. Immigrants--just get rid of them; people without health insurance--just let them die; enemies overseas are doing things--just bomb them into oblivion; weed is legal in certain places--let's crackdown on it; jobs are vanishing--let's deport people. I could go on and on with that.

So these are some of the main areas where I see that we've entered or at the onset of a post-cognitive age. And this is an important issue because when humanity ceases to think, then there's not much separating us from animal life. in fact, what distinguishes humanity from animals is our cognitive abilities.

Now I'm not saying that I'm right. All of this is a gray area where inductive reasoning is more applicable. I'm instead making an argument for something that I see going on in my society, and I'm attempting to offer an explanation--or at least I'm acknowledging that our technology is quickly altering not just our human values, but core elements of our humanity: thinking. And nowhere in this post or any others are any claims made by me that I'm smarter than anyone or that using tech makes you dumb.

To reiterate my major claim, I'm merely saying that tech advances are providing humans with a choice, to think or not to think and too many people are choosing the latter. Feel free to disagree with me, that is fine, but I'd prefer you tell me why I'm wrong because an insult or a misrepresentation doesn't get us anywhere and instead just underscores my argument that more and more folks would rather not have to think.
Click to expand...
Much food for thought here.

Most people have been conditioned to consider thinking a chore, something to be gotten over with as quickly as possible or avoided altogether. Yet, it has always been thus and the modern world only made it easier and more convenient to do so. It didn't change human nature.

For those who engage in cognitive thinking, the tools available today, including those mentioned above, are invaluable for helping get at the heart of the matter more quickly and accurately. That said, they don't substitute for the thinking itself.

Thinking is hard. It takes effort and practice. It's a lot like learning to play an instrument like the guitar; nowadays, more people just want to play Guitar Hero than actually learn to play the instrument. Yet playing Guitar Hero will never create original music or produce as much satisfaction as the real thing.

I don't know that my points contradiction your assertions. I'm pointing out that only a few people throughout history ever really aspired to original thought. Those relative few who do today will still do so and that all the tools we have created to help will aid the endeavor rather than impede it.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Now you're being even more condescending. Why are you assuming I am following someone else's comments rather than reading the thread?

I understand your ideas and I come from a family that promotes higher education and is very successful. Even my young niece is more into Art and music and writing than Facebook.

But you are still lumping and labeling and yes being quite condescending in your approach.

Not all young people act in the way you propose. And not all students or even people are afraid of critical thinking. Or will in the future.

And it has always been the way you say it is going to be now. Just with different distractions. And in different degrees.

Don't you remember when everyone just vegged in front of the tv and stabbed the remote over and over?

People adapt to technology. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Again, you misrepresent my position. Not once did I write that all students are afraid of critical thinking. Rather, I would argue that critical thinking is not the primary learning objective of most courses taken by students at the secondary or higher education level. It's not because that requires too much thought by poorly compensated and overworked college faculty. I'd even argue that the vast majority of American teachers at high schools did much critical thinking toward fulfillment of their degrees, and teach even less of that. There's empirical studies that support this claim I'm making.

I'll reiterate since you missed my point--I'm saying that tech advances are giving people a choice: think or don't think. Given human nature, more will choose non-thinking. Does that mean everyone? No, that means the majority of humans will opt to not think rather than to think.

How am I being condescending? This sounds like when the major character of Idiocracy went to court, spoke in his defense, and then everyone in the courtroom, even his own atty, began denigrating him and insulting him, perceiving his reasoning as condescending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top