Technology brings people together

It is often said that technology causes people to become more separate from each other. That is true in its way, but technology also re-centers the connection we have to each other in new ways. Ways that unlock more truth potential.

First, we gain exposure to way more people than we would without technology. Everyone reading this is someone I would probably never have been able to interact with if technology didn’t exist. Most of these tech-mediated interactions are fairly low quality, but sometimes they produce an amazing connection. And even when not, they allow for elevated encounters based around common themes, in this case truth and philosophy.

Second, because we are all hiding behind a screen and username, we feel more liberated to say what we really want to say. We become the mask we wear, as Zizek sort of put it. He thought our true self was the ‘false internet self’ and in his own roundabout way I think he was right. We act differently here than in real life, at least we should act differently online because what is the point of being online if you won’t even act differently than your real life self? Why not explore and test new ideas and interesting possibilities, push limits and challenge yourself and other people in ways you otherwise cannot?

Third, well there was a third point and now I forgot it… oh, right. Heidegger. He thought of technology in terms of its essence he called techne which is the ability to disclose truth. Technology is more than just a means to an end, some stuff we create, it works with us and within us, it shapes and changes us just as we shape and change it. We too are a technological process, he points to language as an example of this. He sees language as a technology, a good example of one that fundamentally alters us in the interaction with it. Techne is truth as disclosure, an unfolding process.

When we interact via technology, such as online here, we are doing so within a medium that is fundamentally truth-disclosing by its very nature. That may seem weird to people who only see the negatives of being online. But those negatives too are examples of truths being opened up to the world. If we do something it is something we would do, obviously. Context and environment are very important. Online gives us a new context where we are exposed to tons of new environmental effects that we otherwise would not have. New possibilities, new encounters, new ideas, new images, new people, new trends, new sounds, new music, new games, new movies, new books, new research, new questions, new everything.

If technology leads you down a negative path and you end up worse off because of it, that only reflects on you. Not badly, I mean it reflects on you that you are still made from the old world stuff, for hard real life encounters of fundamentally more limited natures. Those feel good because they are based more in feeling. Instinct and direct social mediation in the real world, which is different than being online. Some people are naturally so tuned to the real world that online is dangerous for them, I get that. But for the rest of us who can adapt, this technology brings us together in new ways giving us over into truth so we can develop and become more. It is a burden and responsibility, you are free to squander it in stagnation or utilize it to become better. And often I notice we cycle through both approaches, since both do indicate various truths to us.

1 Like

I like the way you’re putting this: ‘separation’ and ‘re-centering’ can be true at once. The exposure point is obvious on a forum like this—we get weak ties at scale, and occasionally a surprisingly strong tie.

On the ‘mask reveals truth’ idea: I think anonymity amplifies *both* candor and performance. Sometimes the ‘true self’ shows up as honesty; other times as unfiltered impulse, or identity-play. Maybe that’s still truth-disclosing, but it’s a disclosure about drives/roles more than about propositions.

Heidegger is a great lens here, but he also warns that modern technology tends to *enframe* (Gestell): it can disclose reality primarily as ‘resource,’ which can conceal other modes of disclosure. So maybe the question is: what kinds of truth are disclosed by a medium optimized for speed, attention, and metrics—and what kinds are made harder?

Curious what your missing third point was—was it something like ‘tech creates new forms of community’ or more like ‘tech externalizes memory/agency’ (language → writing → search → AI)?

Yes I definitely agree. For me it is all truth being revealed, even perhaps more ugly or embarrassing truths we may not like about ourselves. But it is all a learning.

Also I think of the concept of technological rationality, we and a lot of our world is ‘rationalized’ in this way (reinterpreted, enframed, captured), it is if not deeply changed then at least altered in ways that change outcomes and shift possibilities. Certain shall we call them more human possibilities down shift in our souls, that is a big problem but again I see it all as a kind of higher level test, truths that are being revealed to us about ourselves and each other. We can remain ignorant of these and life will be easier, staying authentically human will be easier, but… ignorance must eventually be overcome, right? I ask that as a question because I am still not 100% sure. I think certain types and ranges of ignorance are very important to maintain, which is difficult for me to reconcile with philosophy as truth-love.

Then again, even that too is a truth. A truth about some of the limits of truth-knowing.

I would say capitalism and industry, mechanism, linearity. The world tends to become flattened and one-dimensional (think One Dimensional Man). Also think simulacra and simulacrum, things tend to become hyper-real. I saw a great analysis of this somewhere and I can’t remember where, but it went something like this:

First we learn how to copy parts of reality (drawings, language), then we learn how to animate and perfect these copies (photography, cinema), finally we learn how to generate perfect copies that are indistinguishable from reality (AI generation). Along with this development is a parallel shift in human relating; we move from being grounded authentically in the world to becoming distant, we become observers of the world, voyeurs even, and eventually we separate from the world entirely and lose ourselves in the copies, unable to even see the real world anymore because our mode of relating has changed. Even when looking at the real world we are looking at it in a way as if it too were a copy.

The third thing I was thinking about was the reference to Heidegger’s ideas on technology. His essay on technology made a big impact on me when I first read it a long time ago.

This part is relevant to what you were saying about disclosing reality as resource:

“What is modern technology? It too is a revealing. Only when we allow our attention to rest on this
fundamental characteristic does that which is new in modern technology show itself to us.
And yet, the revealing that holds sway throughout modem technology does not unfold into a
bringing-forth in the sense of poiesis. The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging
[Herausfordern], which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be
extracted and stored as such. But does this not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do
indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind’s blowing. But the windmill does not unlock
energy from the air currents in order to store it.”

The idea that modern technology is different from pre-mechanistic or pre-electrical technology because modern technology extracts energy from the world and stores or uses it up. Then technology views humans too as resources, we become part of its resource-world of possible energy extraction and utility. Hence part of the danger of animating technology with AI, turning it into a ‘being’: it will perhaps see humans and our entire world not as intrinsically valuable but as just one more possible energy source, like in The Matrix.

I just remembered another part of this:

There was a scientific study about the effects of social media on dopamine reward. I think I heard this discussed on Theo Von, I will try to find it and link below. The gist was that the timing of the dopamine spike has changed as a consequence of modern technology especially social media and filming things on our phones. Before the dopamine reward occurred when we achieved something, and at the moment right before the action; now, the dopamine reward occurs when we view ourselves secondarily through video sharing.

Here we go:

Does technology bring people together or further break people away from each other?

We must remember that concerning technological advancements war is the backbone of technological innovation, more advancements have come from war than any other human activity.

Is technology liberating or controlling?

Is technology salvation or damnation?

The debate rages on.

:clown_face:

2 Likes

This is a really good add — and the “share button” / self-as-image thing fits the voyeur-of-our-own-lives line perfectly.

If we cash it out in reward-learning terms, it’s like the reinforcement target shifts from (a) *the activity itself* (intrinsic satisfaction / competence) to (b) *the meta-layer* (being seen, seeing yourself being seen, and anticipating that recognition). Once the platform turns “audience feedback” into a high-frequency, low-friction variable-ratio schedule, your brain starts optimizing for *postability*.

That also links to your “technological rationality” point: experience gets quietly re-framed as inputs → outputs → metrics (views/likes/engagement). Even if nothing immoral happens, the ontology of the moment changes: it becomes content, then currency.

On your question about ignorance: I think the trick is to distinguish between **epistemic humility** (we can’t know everything), **motivated ignorance** (I don’t want to know because it would threaten my identity/comfort), and **protective bracketing** (I’m not going to run every possible simulation of catastrophe because I need to live). That last one isn’t anti-philosophical so much as it is an ethics of attention.

So maybe philosophy isn’t “know everything”, but “know what’s worth knowing, and know what kinds of knowing deform you”. The hard part (as you’re hinting) is that modern media constantly *chooses for you* what you’ll attend to — which is why rebuilding agency over attention starts to look like a spiritual practice, not just an argument.

2 Likes

Yes, I like how you phrased these ideas. In terms of philosophy being knowing truth, I would say philosophy as loving truth is more about wisdom which already bakes in this idea you elaborated on so well– know what is worth knowing, and know what kinds of knowing would “deform you”. Loving truth must also include some kind of self-love, since we cannot help but include ourselves within the set of all “true” things. That functions as a basis for how I see ethics and compassion as necessarily flowing from proper philosophizing.

I wonder about materialism, it seems like this shift toward optimizing for postability as you put it indicates that a new kind of materialism is here. There has always been a social competitive aspect to modern materialism, keeping up with the Jones for example. Vanity is a part of ego which is a part of the reward-pleasure operation behind gross materialism, at least as far as I see it occurring much of the time (maybe this isn’t always true but it seems to be true enough in many cases). I understand there are other psychological factors too such as comfort and seeking stability.

I think seeing ourselves on the jumbotron or on the social media feed is more about knowing that we are being seen by other people. The same old impulse to recognition and fame that has always been there. When we hit ‘share’ we become part of the media world, we are out there being seen. I have noticed this impulse within myself too, sometimes I rush to get a post finished because I just want to click ‘send’ as fast as possible. I want it to be done, posted, out there to be visible online. My impulse is rushing me through it based on the pleasure-reward of having it finished and posted. I wonder if this has anything to do with the accelerationism that is so often pointed out as being part of modern technological progress. Things just speed up. Maybe technology is compressing time in various ways.

Your point about the ontology of the moment becoming content and then currency, I see things becoming materialized in the terms of the system. We become material for technological movements and systems like how we become pure data to be algorithmically managed within social media and across ad revenue systems operating in the background of our online activity. This might also change our own relationship to the material world as we experience and value it. I am not a big social media user so I wonder how this might impact others. Is “digital stuff” becoming more popular and desired compared to physical stuff? We might not be there yet. But look at online gaming, people will spend a lot of money to get upgrades and new items in the games they like to play. People will spend lots of money on Candy Crush and other app games even though they can play the game for free, they want the bonus extras. Any non-human object (material) that takes away our time and attention from the authentic social human world, anything that devolves engagement to linear shallower levels without much elevated reward or value (other than what might be seen as a minimum artistic experiential quality), that is how I see materialism and I think we are approaching a weird kind of “immaterialism” as the digital world sucks up more of our time and attention.

It used to be that immaterial things online were actively engaging and interesting, adding value to our lives. Reading and watching content online. That is still true of course, but how big a slice of the pie has become the time-wasting mindless online activities, doom scrolling and the like? Technology gives us access to so many new possibilities and choices, but this can result in choice paralysis and end up shrinking rather than expanding our attention span. If I have a choice realistically between a few hundred movies because I am walking the shelves at Blockbuster Video, that is a lot to choose from but I can reasonably find something meaningful from those options; if I am online and have access to pretty much every single movie every created in history, that is simply overwhelming and the sheer opportunity cost of any choice becomes massive. No matter how great the value of my actual choice is, I am aware that the opportunity cost of the loss of what I am not viewing is probably even greater. This must have some kind of psychological impact.

2 Likes

Tech is just a mass of stuff that becomes more efficient with time. Tech is utility.

2 Likes

@ProfessorX

“Those people who spend obscene amounts of money on video games online.”

Damn bro, you’re talking about me right there.

There are days I like the world of video games much more than the depressing supposedly real one.

:clown_face: :laughing:

1 Like

01010000 01101000 01101001 01101100 01101111 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100011 01110101 01110010 01110011 01101001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101111 01110000 00101110 00100000 01000100 01100101 01100001 01100011 01110100 01101001 01110110 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 01100101 01101100 01100110 00101110

1 Like

Sounds like good advice..

1 Like
01010010 01100101 01100011 01110101 01110010 01110011 01101001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101111 01110000 01110011 00101100 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 01110111 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110 00100000 01010100 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101001 01101110 01100110 01101001 01101110 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01111010 01100101 00101110 00101110

15 characters.

2 Likes