Mass Communications Effect on the Physical Mind

Mass Communications Effect on the Physical Mind

My theory is this.
​

Society implements an idea that requires mental adaptation. A person must then change their thought process to adapt to the requirements that make this idea possible. But many times with any new idea, the negative consequences of the idea being put into action are only seen later, usually after the idea has become a basic essential to everyday life. Thus creating the dilemma of whether the idea is worth the consequences. This also adds a new aspect to the thought process which complicates it a great deal. With a new idea shall eventually come another idea to make the previous idea better, which will also require more thought process adaptation.

With the advancement of communication technologies increasing at such an amazing rate the spread and implement of new ideas is increasing at a tremendous rate. A rate that I believe the human brain will not have time to adapt to. When the brain does not have the time to adapt itself to these new "ways of life" it is forced to adapt in an entirely different way. When something has been adapted to in a society for a long period of time it begins to evolve this adaptation into the physical aspect of the brain. However when the ideas are being built upon so quickly the adaptation does not have time to take physical form it instead remains within our thought process. With the amount of ideas out there today it takes years upon years just to adapt the thought process to a point where a person has a basic understanding of how some of these ideas work. With every new idea adapted to there will be a thousand more waiting. This overload of ideas could be considered an idea itself and thus be adapted to. But if the brain adapts itself to a state of constant adaptation, leaving behind the core elements such as instinct (which is now nearly frowned upon in society) what will it become and how will it change the physical attributes of the brain? In turn, what problems will this create? How will it effect vital necessities such as memory? Is the brain capable of keeping up with the rate at which it must adapt? And if not, what then.

 

In the planned society that is approaching, it won't matter. Once the brain chip is mandated, they won't have to worry about people adapting because they will be literally automatons programmed what to think and do.

 

I think your theory is based on a premise that people watch/listen only educational media. If you look at the TV/radio ratings and movie ticket sales, by far the most popular media is entertainment (which is generally mindless and doesn't challenge peoples intellect in any way). As for your question, I don't think anyone knows what the human mind is truly capable of. If you want to read something about what the mass media has already done and is doing, read Neil Postmans "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

 

We don't need a brain chip. The mass corporate media has people in an ideological-religious stupor.

.

 

I think it'll take a lot more than being chipped to leave our core instincts behind. Though yes, I see a huge paradigm shift happening once 'chipping' gets to a state where we're neurally integrated with it. It will have to.

From what I can observe now from my own environment, is that we're already losing things like attention spans and memory retention as our storable and communicable technology gets more advanced and as we rely more on it. Is it an adaptation that's more beneficial than problematic? The luddites and the futurists could argue for ages, I'm sure.

The post-human condition. This is essentially what I'd lump this kind of cyborg-ism into, as well as hyper-longevity. Both of which I think will have an impact on how our brain functions in any range from: coded intincts and patterns conflicting into a 'cyberpsychosis' to loss of personality.

Part of the human condition will need to be closely kept in check, I believe as we migrate to a more adaptive brain. The impact of things like tactile interaction with other humans and other vital and important elements to what holds us together needs to kept on top of as well as learning on how to cope with filtering masses of data in a different way. Our brains kept us pretty sheltered from overload, we must be careful to preserve that.

Great topic! Something I'll be thinking about all day.

 

Is there an eternal life? I've seen no proof that there is in my 56 years.

 

Technology only makes communication more accessible. I enjoy internet communication. I don't own a cell so haven't been there. But the communications I see made by cell most are just insipid in context. Communication in any form should be understood for what it is initially. Are there great ideas being transmitted?... probably, but most are probably trivial.

 

you are referring to what is known as "The Singularity" where machinery develops beyond our understanding and therefore as thinkers we - the human race become redundant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
But then to begin with you say

A flawed premise, namely because if we were to try and do anything about negative consequences -that might might have seriously negative consequences
which kinda means that even if actions have negative consequences sometimes doing anything about it makes a whole bigger heap of sh*t than by just leaving well alone
you are going to lead on to some quasi (an I do mean Kwazy Mr Wabbit) argument (arent you?) about technophobia and how man its alllllll tooooo much to take so theres an answer you have in mind - uh lets hear it then!

 

Are'nt people equipped with the evolutionary equivilent of circuit breakers? When it gets to be to much they just tune out, or break down and go climb a watertower, to pick strangers off with high powered rifles?


It's my opinion that instincts may have once been frowned upon, but they seem to be going through a revival. Take Oprah, who has a huge influence on hamerican culture, just look at the laws she gets passed when she does a show on abused children and asks her viewers to write into their state leaders. She talks about instincts often and even shows her viewers how to recognize their own instinctive urges.

She is just one example. I am heading out shortly I can't look up more now sorreh.
From what I can tell with the media trends it is heading to more individualised interests being catered to as more and more people head towards the interactive setting of the internet. To me it feels like we are opening up to a more personalised media experience instead of being served up what ever someone on some board somewhere thinks is 'entertainment'.

Unless the freedom of information on the web is lost it seems like we are entering into a time of finaly being able to persue their own interests instead of some mainstream idea of what our interests should be.

Humans are very good at adapting, which is evident in the prolific success of our species, can't say that for the more fragile species that our actions are hastening the departure of, but I think it is not realistic to think a controlling few can hijack entire populations for long. So I don't think it is possible for humans to leave their instincts behind, instincts, gut feelings, all that stuff is in us from the dawn of time, it is part of what we are. It is how we survive and not listening to them is how we self destruct.

 

What a brilliant post that was honeysuckle =- made a lot of sense !