Neuroscientists today seem to be finding evidence that individual humans have a relatively-advanced "public-relations module", which speaks (often after the fact) for the reasons behind the ways that they behaviorally react to developments in the world around. Unfortunately, like the automatic neural-systems that more-directly impact our behaviors, that PR-module is not always kept abreast of developments in those other subsystems.
Historically, of course, folks often thought of themselves as organisms under the control of a single "thinker", represented by the voice of that PR-module. Moreover, they are often blissfully unaware of the effects of concept-choice on the world that their PR module sees.
This illusion of the "knower in charge", of course, has consequences for policy. It might lead, for example, to the presumption that if we armed "good knowers" with weapons and took weapons away from "bad knowers" then such a weaponization process would serve as the foundation of neverending social bliss.
Of course if all "knowers in charge" are really just partially-informed PR-modules, which mainly after-the-fact explain behaviors by "muscle-memory modules" capable of much more rapid-response, then weaponization might mainly just give all those PR-modules more in the way of "unintended consequences" to explain after the fact. In this context, can we risk assuming that "folks who think they are infallible in this way" are less likely to fail than those who don't?
Friday, May 24, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment