Who is this “Internet” getting “shocked”?

I recently read this interesting headline: “Leopard Hunts Baby Monkey, Internet Shocked”.

As a human, I always had the impression that we, the living beings, had a monopoly on being “shocked”, so the headline left me with two choices, namely whether it is an acute case of anthropomorphism or whether a new life form has emerged. appeared in our midst of which I am unaware.

Anthropomorphism, the human tendency to give everything a personality, is not really a rare phenomenon. It ranges from treating dogs extremely like human babies to imagining one’s nation as a mother to tackling non-living objects like a car or boat as females with specific qualities. Since our brains are mainly built around the social needs, we very often use the same emotional temples, even to describe non-human entities of our world.

While it would be interesting to think about the internet from this context, as it will mean gender determination, and we already have a lot of such memes floating around, but looking back at the “shocked” part, it’s obvious that in the case of the Internet, we are building a brand new association.

The Internet seems to be turning into a meta-brain, and the metaphor has a lot of traction to offer.

It is possible to look at each of us as individual neurons and the networks we build by connecting together through different sets of associations as neural networks (which facilitated the advent of the internet, especially social media as vast).

Like neurons, each of us offers a bias or binary polarity toward the “reality” input we receive and the process produces a collective output like “Internet is shocked”. It’s a charmingly fitting model that’s hard to disprove or see as rhetoric.

But is the internet really “shocked” as a meta or mega-human brain in the way we’re now inclined to imagine it?

My own answer is a NO.

The Internet may be or become a meta-brain, but its qualities will not be extrapolated from a human brain, and there’s a reason for that.

Simplifying the way the human brain programs itself is all about building as much random data as possible at an early stage (youth) (by sensing reality) and networks that are then judged against reality ( during early adulthood) and chopped and pruned over the years until a lean mean reality cracker is formed in the shape of an old adult (a very energy efficient idea that ultimately fails due to the very USP of being lean and mean). It looks like a flexible model, but it isn’t. The neurons lack the level of plasticity and don’t get it through evolution because they are expected to be fixed points in a grid after a while.

If you bring this model of the human brain to the internet now, there are two problems, i.e. each of the brains would be in a different state of programming and most importantly, each brain would be programmed around a different set of data. (also real as imaginary or interpreted).

When this conglomerate comes together and processes information, it is highly unlikely that it will deliver the seamless output that neural networks of a single human brain would generate.

So it’s very likely that the internet is conceptually like a meta-brain, it’s going to be a pseudo-brain, and the danger is that we imagine it to be a collective brain.

Since we have naturally assumed that the internet provides outputs such as the “mood of the nation” or “the choice of society”, we now react to social media outputs as if they represent a collective state of the metabrain, and this is true the problem arises because of another core quality of our social human brain.

We humans have both an individual module and a social module in our brain, and the social module believes in conformity.

We are designed to look for safety in numbers at every level. Our brains know that swimming against the current isn’t really worth it, so we’re constantly looking for the signals that give us insight into what the majority is confirming.

We may think that it is of great value to us to form our opinions about the data we have personally, the truth is that we have lazy brains that don’t want to put in that much effort and are quite eager to take the collective signals.

Now that the internet has now been given the great honor of being a representative peer through this emerging social myth about it, we are now ducks thanks to our brain design, because we are now falling into the trap.

A bias we perceive on the internet triggers our social brain to accept and follow. And with that bias now also being manipulated by forces of agenda greed, it’s a snowball moving on a downward slope.

If the Internet is a brain, at this stage of its development it is that of a child or a schizophrenic who also has control over some really crooked individuals who use this helpless child/schizophrenic to commit acts that benefit their ulterior motives. come.

There’s no point in predicting what it will become in the future, as the interconnectedness will undoubtedly provide a meta-level form or emerging entity that we can’t imagine at the moment, but the way it currently works and is managed, it seems highly unlikely that humanity and the internet have a great future ahead of them, in the company of each other.



The above views are those of the author.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.