The traditional critique of "screen addiction" is built on a flawed premise: that a human being can exist in a state of pure, self-sustained autonomy. By framing smartphone use as a failure of discipline, we ignore the biological mandate of the brain. The human mind is an open system; it requires constant stimulation to maintain its structural integrity. Without input, consciousness does not find "freedom", it collapses into aggression, stagnation, or existential dread.
In this light, our reliance on digital interfaces and AI is not a sign of weakness, but a rational adaptation to a world that often fails to provide meaningful analog stimulation. We are not "addicts" in the clinical sense; we are operators of our own neurochemistry, using external tools as cognitive prostheses to stabilize our internal state.
The goal, therefore, should not be the impossible feat of total independence from the "system." Instead, we must shift toward a strategy of functional optimization. If dependency is a fundamental condition of human existence, the only meaningful choice is to exchange high-cost, destructive dependencies for those that are manageable and sustainable. We must stop fighting our nature and start engineering our environment.
>>32350>Without input, consciousness does not find "freedom", it collapses into aggression, stagnation, or existential dread.I've experienced this, but skillful meditators for example do not. There may be something to dependent arising or interbeing existing, and engineering the environment being helpful. It resonates.
>The Myth of Autonomy
Epstein ass title
>>32354Never heard of this book
>>32350>>32354Automated posts
>>32357wrong. they are my original ideas and i used llm to enhace them. learn the difference.
>>32355fact: there is no such thing as "autonomy".
its pointless to discuss with idiots who don't know this.