[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature" - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1769469260842.jpg (64.57 KB, 1023x682, depositphotos_66520995-sto….jpg)

 

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.

File: 1769527981527.jpeg (10 KB, 360x555, images.jpeg)

Digital minimalism is system-compliant because it frames a structural problem as an individual task. It serves the system in four ways:

Individualization: It shifts responsibility from Big Tech's addictive algorithms to the user's "self-discipline," preventing political backlash.

Performance Optimization: Promoted by authors like Cal Newport, it aims for "Deep Work". You don't quit to be free; you quit to be a more efficient worker.

Class Distinction: It acts as a status symbol for the elite. Silence and analog focus become luxury goods, separating the "disciplined" upper class from the "distracted" masses.

Controlled Rebellion: It offers the feeling of resistance through lifestyle choices without challenging the underlying platform capitalism.

In short: It’s a maintenance program for the modern workforce, not a revolution.

>The Myth of Autonomy
Epstein ass title

>>32354
Never heard of this book

>>32350
>>32354
Automated posts

>>32357
wrong. they are my original ideas and i used llm to enhace them. learn the difference.

>>32355
fact: there is no such thing as "autonomy".

its pointless to discuss with idiots who don't know this.

File: 1769552469737.png (350.43 KB, 1000x1000, ClipboardImage.png)

>>32350
>We must stop fighting our nature and start engineering our environment.
Human nature is on the one hand a Spook (in the sense of being a relatively fixed restrictive idea), and on the other hand all that there is in human beings. There is no environment independent nature of man, yet all man does is a result of his biology, his nature, environment or even ideas can quickly constitute a second nature, but time is all that makes this second to a first nature. Human nature is something like the divine right of kings used to justify what currently exists which all sucks.

A question of mine, which relates, is why does the will exist? Or does it? Or does it have to? Why is there not simple wanting then doing? An LLM answered mostly with antiquated Spook filled notions of blame assignment in social and personal settings, and ranking of temporally separated wills, which seems like it could be completely automated. There was maybe something to do with planning, but I don't see the issue here either, you want so you plan and then you do.

>>32362
>Why does the will exist?
>Why is there not simple wanting then doing?
I suspect what we're talking about here is not the will but the idea of feelings of cognitive exertion even though there's no cognitive resource that is being exhausted. My guess is that our will needn't be effortful, this is even true for non-habitual choices, and happens when there is little internal conflict. So it turns out the vast majority of our human actions aren't effortful, but the question that follows is: why is this internal conflict not resolved effortlessly? I couldn't find a satisfactory answer to this, but it probably doesn't matter at all, the whole point of will is that you just ignore the strain. none-of-this-is-real.jpg

>Or does it have to?
Empirically people who think the will is a depletable resource tend to have a depletable will, while those who don't do not, so it's not out of the question that there could be some sort of psychological mechanism at play here. Not only a "spook" but a "spook" that artificially constrains us. My best guess presently however is that the main artificial constraint is not with the presence of the will but with the idea that we need to respond or even focus on strain. Real tough guy stuff: regular exercise, cold showers, meditation.

>>32350
I agree with >>32354 but this logic is just silly. Are all addictions myths? The fact is addiction exists, but the solution isn't to individually abstain from a powerful technology that is extremely integrated into daily life. We need to address the issues that make it addictive at the social (and for some individuals possibly medical) level, the same as other addictions. That will transform our relationship to these technologies. But saying it's not addictive is ridiculous when the big social/media companies literally run social experiments and engineer their platforms to be as addictive as possible and push the content that is specifically addictive to you as an individual.


Unique IPs: 6
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /