And I model society as a system, I model stories as systems, I model interpersonal interactions as systems, I model people as systems. I think exclusively in terms of dynamic relational systems. This means when I receive new information, my brain files it automatically.
-
-
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
It's like a post office, in a way? Every input I receive my brain intuitively routes to the space in the system where it fits. But when I receive an input that doesn't fit with the system it jams the whole thing up. It's almost painful, it's visceral. What does this look like?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
In a social system, I assume justice. I assume that people can do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, and that persecution of harmless people is wrong - as is ignoring harmful people. When I see injustice, it doesn't fit into that system.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
In communication, I assume that me and the other person are both discussing the same thing. We're building a shared model, which is always risky, but we do it. In this context, any statement containing ambiguity can't be fit into the system of the interaction cleanly.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
When thinking about software engineering, I have intuitively a model of the whole application running in my head. When I add a new feature, I can tell where it's going to intersect the rest of the system and anticipate potential problems *trivially* - they're obvious to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
When someone is telling me a story that narrative fits a model. Interestingly, I am _more_ interested in the stories that break my expectations - but only in this domain? It's fun to have those models shattered and expanded.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
All of these things cause me to experience a strong emotional response. They seem in many ways unrelated, but it's become clear to me that in each case the exact same pattern is repeating: I have a system, I have an input the system can't account for, and something has to change.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mykola @cleverclue and
I model it as 'detection' because my intuitive understanding that a discontinuity exists _precedes my ability to know what that discontinuity is_ - I have to stop and think about it. This feels to me like how a lot of people describe their own emotional processing.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Have you read this book? I think you may appreciate it a lot!pic.twitter.com/nF6U8l79Js
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
yeah reading summaries here I think I strongly agree with the premise. basically this reductive scientific-materialist delusion we've been operating under for the bulk of a century - pretending that subjective state doesn't exist and if does then it doesn't matter - is so bad!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Strong agree. Abelson called it the “Tyranny of instrumentality” and i think ‘tyranny’ was a very good choice of words.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.