LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • ohtwenty

    Interesting thoughts, but it assumes that transmitting thoughts would work seamlessly, that your brain doesn't translate thoughts or word them in different ways. Basically, that we think the same, or similarly enough, that you thinking my thoughts would make sense.

    A post-verbal world would be one with less separateness, of more complete ideas, spreading globally (and activating coordination for them) over weeks and months rather than years (or in the case of things like democracy or absolution of slavery; taking centuries to spread).

    This is assuming again that everyone thinks similarly. Even worse, it assumes those against slavery, democracy, etc just "don't get it". I mean slave owners would've been some of the most well versed in what slavery means. Similarly, dictators will be really knowledgeable on democracy, because they'll spend a huge portion of their time on trying to make sure it doesn't happen. People don't just think differently or "wrong" (aside:slavery is obviously wrong to most of us, yet it exists; what about your views on <insert outgroup> that's so obviously wrong?) because they haven't thought the right thoughts yet. Maybe they've genuinely thought the same thoughts as you, but arrived at a different conclusion.

    See SSC for some thoughts on people 'missing concepts'. What makes you think you'd suddenly understand them?

    • Appaloosa

      I had this very discussion many moons ago with my sister in law, a research scientist. Her take, how we think is the product of a great many things, even diet. Of course the environment you grew up in plays a factor. She was looking and studying hormones, these are things we can not control willingly. Enter the scientists who think they can.

      • ohtwenty

        that's how I felt reading this. there's no foundation for what they're saying, no rationalization as far as I've seen that it'll work. I mean I had fun reading this and wbw's article, it's a fun thought experiment, but I don't see how it'll actually work. Unless there's some translation or whatever, but then you're back at square one, except maybe slightly faster transfer of flawed communication.

        And that's without getting into why you would want this, or how you expect to turn a really individualised society into one where enough people want this.

        I mean I have arguments with my wife sometimes about whatever, and we reaaaaaaaaaally talk it out and at the end I feel like I understand her argumentation, why she feels that way, etc, and still disagree. Not seeing how literally thinking what the other person thinks will somehow improve my empathic abilities.