☕ David Antoine Interesting quote found on quitfacebook... "Our brains are no match for our technology". But our technology is a direct result of our brains. So, put it very simply, is it matching when we do good things with it and not matching when we do bad things? Any thoughts?

😾 Oskar Technology is a form of art, formalized after N iterations. I doubt we can judge technology only in terms of STEM (utility). Morality is disconnected from technology per se as it's only a result of using it. Therefore, I would extend your argument into question whether human is inherently evil because he finds a way to misuse technology?

🌋 Pod Unk Depends on your theory of art: what if it's just conspicuous consumption of productive capacity? What if, as Adam Savage recently said, there is no differentiation between making [ie, the use and creation of technology] and art?

😾 Oskar Well, I thought more in terms of emergence of innovative technology. Ie. Medicine began as purely empirical art, the need to organize knowledge was secondary to exercising judgment based on experience.

☕ David Antoine Your empirical art and exercising judgment based on experience makes me weirdly think about the work of some theoretical physicists. Especially those studying Dr. Wolfram Cellular Automata Theory of unification. They basically are at the same stage of discovering the raw art, the emergence properties and potential descriptive power of the theory as well as organizing their knowledge around it...

😾 Oskar Wow. I didn't go that deep, mostly not to get discussion into the puddle of unverifiable claims and my lack of knowledge in physics. But, yes. I do think that STEM is on a road to become less formalized and deal more with problems by deploying tools more similar to an art than, well, formalized logic. This doesn't mean some New Age crap and throwing away logic in full. It's more about human indisposition to perfectly understand causality in terms of strict logical rigor.

☕ David Antoine No throwing of logic and common sense, I hope. One thing is for sure, physics is the part of STEM that's not going to become less formalized anytime soon. I watched some of the newly created Wolfram Physics Project live work sessions. Those guys are bonkers. Even causality is an emerging property in their framework. Way over my pay grade. But it is less about finding short term practical solutions than long term potential paradigm shift. They still are doing art in a sense...

😾 Oskar I also hate modern pseudo intellectual relativism, devoted of any logical rigor. What I had in mind is limiting abstractions in favor of studying complex systems 'as they are', exercising judgment based on experience (Wolfram loves simulations as i remember), form of art. After art is established, there evolves a need for formalization of gained knowledge. Not the other way around. I'll check them out, treating causality as emergent is interesting as hell. Great discussion!

☕ David Antoine I think I understood you ;) And yes, modern "intellectual" relativism is part of the problem if not one of the main issue in our disgruntled societies (would be interesting to know if it ties somehow with atheism, but not sure, that's another rabbit hole)... Great discussion indeed! Check them out, maybe you will understand more think than I, especially their hypergraphs networks, they are seriously very high level mathematicians and physicists. Not that I expected less...

🤔 David Would either yourself or @ow have any preferred resources for learning about "modern pseudo-intellectual relativism" and/or what is in support of your views? I find this conversation interesting and would love to learn more!

😾 Oskar I think this is sort of very informal discussion using amalgam of different views and knowledge. Hard to pin point to one source. As for pseudo intellectual relativism I referred to bullshit peddling of individuals trying to push discourse into 'You can't say that, everything is inherently Incomplete' while either leveraging Godel (smart ones) or just vague powers of mind (New Age). As for references for my thought process: Girard, Heidegger, Godel, Hofstadter.Nothing unusual

☕ David Antoine Nice way to put it! It is like the "everything is relative" by Einstein but not in the way the relative reference frame of special relativity is intended to be used :)

Joseph Gilmore My English professor during college referred to this as the post modern shuffle. He said It is a way to get around saying anything or confronting anything.

☕ David Antoine Nice way as well. Shuffling bad ideas like shuffling bad music we could say..