Superstitious or Stupid?
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 5:08 am
Superstitious or Stupid?
7/25/2023
0 Comments
How do you know you are a superstitious person? You see patterns that are not there. How do you know you are a stupid person? You don't see patterns when they are there. You can't be both, you have to pick your poison.
The body has it's own way of thinking. For example, if you sound a bell every time you feed your dog, your dog will think that the sound of the bell means it's time to eat, which is not true. This type of Pavlov's reasoning is associative learning. It is the type of learning that animals have. We also have this type of learning through our physical body. Learning how to reason with and guide the physical body is an art and a challenge.
Some people think that Pavlov's dog's reasoning is no longer important. But I say it is. It's this "superstitious" type of reasoning that allows us to slam the breaks in time before we hit the car in front of us. While our thinking brain tries to figure out what to do, our Pavlov brain has already figure out and executed the action to save our lives.
The Pavlov reasoning is also very good at detecting a liar. Being the mother of my son, I know when he is lying to me before he says a word while he is halfway down the hallway from me. This is not discerned through reasoning; it's discerned through the ability to associate sensory data and find patterns in it.
Finding patterns in data is powering AI. It is a powerful learning tool. While mistakes are to be expected, learning will occur and the result is intelligence that would not have been gained without the ability to make mistakes and learn from them.
We all have a pattern of reality that we consider the real world. Of course it is not really reality but it is based on our experience of reality. Then we take that pattern and go live in the world with it. Much like a gamer has a list of game executions he wants to make, then plays against other players to see if his choice of action executions can win.
In this process, we all fail, we all make mistakes, we all make illogical conclusions, we all mistake fantasy for reality and reality for fantasy. And what makes the whole thing laughable, is we all call one another crazy throughout the process. People throughout history have been burned at the stake, whether right or wrong, in their perceptional ideological views of reality.
It's very important that we stop making intellectual superiority into a god. It's very funny that we humans rely on computers to do things with exactness, a level of exactness we can't replicate like computers can; and yet; the breakthrough technology in computers is now about learning to let the computers make mistakes. (With the training of AI).
I think we need to be careful about needing to be right, needing others to be right, calling people crazy for being wrong, or expecting intellectual perfection from each other. With any kind of understanding of how the human brain works, it is easy to assert that no single individual is capable of being right about everything; and we have to make allowances for each other as part of the definition of humanity.
This means we need to take full responsibility for our choices. For example, let's say a doctor comes out with a prescribed health protocol that he is convinced is safe and effective. Let's say all the rage of the health experts agree with him. So all the people put their trust in this doctor because of his intellectual superiority; even though several of the people had a Pavolv's acuity that this protocol was the wrong choice.
When we ignore our own perceptions of reality, we are unable to make mistakes and learn from them. It's ok to accept the wisdom and intellectual acuity of people we trust and who have a track record of being right. But unless they know the secrets to immortality (and even if they knew, whose to say they would share them)... then at some point their knowledge will run out.
I assert that we are actually of more benefit to humanity when we disagree with the "intellectuals" and are able to provide our own perceptual understanding of the world that competes and creates a faction from the ordinary. Not that we purposely want to overly fragment the perceptual understanding as it is on a global level. But without some differences in perception, we run the risk of becoming automated; and unable to see past the nose on the face of the intellectual whom we admire most. This limits creativity, expansion, innovation, and dare I say... progress.
Please support my blog by visiting digestmoments.weebly.com
7/25/2023
0 Comments
How do you know you are a superstitious person? You see patterns that are not there. How do you know you are a stupid person? You don't see patterns when they are there. You can't be both, you have to pick your poison.
The body has it's own way of thinking. For example, if you sound a bell every time you feed your dog, your dog will think that the sound of the bell means it's time to eat, which is not true. This type of Pavlov's reasoning is associative learning. It is the type of learning that animals have. We also have this type of learning through our physical body. Learning how to reason with and guide the physical body is an art and a challenge.
Some people think that Pavlov's dog's reasoning is no longer important. But I say it is. It's this "superstitious" type of reasoning that allows us to slam the breaks in time before we hit the car in front of us. While our thinking brain tries to figure out what to do, our Pavlov brain has already figure out and executed the action to save our lives.
The Pavlov reasoning is also very good at detecting a liar. Being the mother of my son, I know when he is lying to me before he says a word while he is halfway down the hallway from me. This is not discerned through reasoning; it's discerned through the ability to associate sensory data and find patterns in it.
Finding patterns in data is powering AI. It is a powerful learning tool. While mistakes are to be expected, learning will occur and the result is intelligence that would not have been gained without the ability to make mistakes and learn from them.
We all have a pattern of reality that we consider the real world. Of course it is not really reality but it is based on our experience of reality. Then we take that pattern and go live in the world with it. Much like a gamer has a list of game executions he wants to make, then plays against other players to see if his choice of action executions can win.
In this process, we all fail, we all make mistakes, we all make illogical conclusions, we all mistake fantasy for reality and reality for fantasy. And what makes the whole thing laughable, is we all call one another crazy throughout the process. People throughout history have been burned at the stake, whether right or wrong, in their perceptional ideological views of reality.
It's very important that we stop making intellectual superiority into a god. It's very funny that we humans rely on computers to do things with exactness, a level of exactness we can't replicate like computers can; and yet; the breakthrough technology in computers is now about learning to let the computers make mistakes. (With the training of AI).
I think we need to be careful about needing to be right, needing others to be right, calling people crazy for being wrong, or expecting intellectual perfection from each other. With any kind of understanding of how the human brain works, it is easy to assert that no single individual is capable of being right about everything; and we have to make allowances for each other as part of the definition of humanity.
This means we need to take full responsibility for our choices. For example, let's say a doctor comes out with a prescribed health protocol that he is convinced is safe and effective. Let's say all the rage of the health experts agree with him. So all the people put their trust in this doctor because of his intellectual superiority; even though several of the people had a Pavolv's acuity that this protocol was the wrong choice.
When we ignore our own perceptions of reality, we are unable to make mistakes and learn from them. It's ok to accept the wisdom and intellectual acuity of people we trust and who have a track record of being right. But unless they know the secrets to immortality (and even if they knew, whose to say they would share them)... then at some point their knowledge will run out.
I assert that we are actually of more benefit to humanity when we disagree with the "intellectuals" and are able to provide our own perceptual understanding of the world that competes and creates a faction from the ordinary. Not that we purposely want to overly fragment the perceptual understanding as it is on a global level. But without some differences in perception, we run the risk of becoming automated; and unable to see past the nose on the face of the intellectual whom we admire most. This limits creativity, expansion, innovation, and dare I say... progress.
Please support my blog by visiting digestmoments.weebly.com
