PHI2010 Final Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Ash Anders PHI 3 December 2021Nguyen’s Echo Chamber: How to Enter a Mind and Escape Your OwnIn the philosophical essay “Why it’s as hard to escape an echo chamber as it is to flee acult” by author C. Thi Nguyen, an elaborate assessment is made of the complex relationshipbetween one’s thoughts and op...

Description

Ash Anders PHI2010 3 December 2021

Nguyen’s Echo Chamber: How to Enter a Mind and Escape Your Own

In the philosophical essay “Why it’s as hard to escape an echo chamber as it is to flee a cult” by author C. Thi Nguyen, an elaborate assessment is made of the complex relationship between one’s thoughts and opinions as well as the influence of outside forces on these very beliefs. Defined as an echo chamber, Nguyen identifies the manipulative pull of internal cues and how they limit debate that can solidify personal beliefs. His solution to this manipulation is explained as the social-epistemic reboot in which one seeks out an external view on purpose to aid in the purge of all original beliefs on the manipulated topic. Nguyen’s analysis of echo chambers and their influence on the trustworthiness of information reflects the question of trust inherent in the problem of other minds. Nguyen correlates the character and mind of a person to the manipulation experienced in an echo chamber and creates a semi-realistic escape through the goodwill offered by outsiders who witness an echo chamber’s effects. Nguyen’s essay explores the manipulation present in these situations and devises the social-epistemic reboot which uses outside perspectives and socialization to reset the assumed beliefs of the victim - thus creating a complex relationship built on the trust of other minds. The problem of other minds, as seen in the text “The Traditional Problem of Body and Mind” by philosopher Bertrand Russell, explores the hypothesis that it is impossible for us to ever truly know what other beings are thinking - we can only truly know the physical actions we

observe. The problem initially addresses the objectivity of the reality of individual minds . It questions how one can be certain that other people have minds in the same manner that one has their own thoughts and beliefs. In this problem, concepts such as knowledge, beliefs, and thoughts are capable of being objects that can be owned and created by the original mind from which other minds are compared to. Nguyen’s essay correlates these now-objects to the trust that one must place in other minds. His argument does not question the validity of the problem itself but rather assumes its truth and subsequently develops his solution to the echo chamber based on the problem’s validity. Socialization is vital to Nguyen’s establishment of the echo chamber because a mind must first be convinced of a false truth by another to be able to deny other facts. Nguyen’s solution, the “Social-Epistemic Reboot”, is based on a total wipe of the mind from which the original beliefs and knowledge are based. The nature of an echo chamber eliminates the usage of words such as “originate” because the function of the echo chamber is in itself to cultivate the repetition of trusted thoughts that are assumed to be vital truths. Trust is a key component to Nguyen’s analysis and solution because of his foundational belief in the problem of other minds. His solution asks the victim of the chamber to purposefully venture outside the chamber to begin the circular flow of experiences needed to break their disbelief in the validity of other minds. Nguyen does however emphasize the integrity of the victims in echo chambers, explaining that these victims are still rational beings that have been severely misinformed by an imposing epistemic bubble. Echo chambers are built on trust and mistrust in the duality of ideas considered to be either true or false. The problem of other minds is a part of the similar duality of a mind being an “other” or not. Nguyen’s solution attempts to break this duality by adding the third perspective from which to show victims that the chamber is not black or white. The manipulation

experienced in the chamber does a very good job at hiding outside sources but it is these exact sources that Nguyen illuminates to be necessary to break the epistemic bubble the victims reside in. He explores two “dangers” that are explicit in echo chambers that threaten and ensnare victims to maintain the appearance of sharing the truth. The first danger is “coverage-reliability” which names the process in which other minds can give the victim an abundance of information or misinformation on only one topic. The lack of variety in the victim’s learning limits their intellectual autonomy and decision-making abilities. The second danger is excessive confidence which comes as a result of being exposed to such a large amount of information that the victim then believes they have already learned all they need to know. Another aspect of Nguyen’s essay is the question of the importance of knowledge in terms of the mind. He mentions Descartes’ evil demon and George Orwell’s “doublespeak” to support both the rationality and manipulation of both sides of the echo chamber argument. The knowledge retained in an echo chamber can generally be considered surface level for the sake of the victim’s trust in their informants versus those they oppose. Two of Nguyen’s great analyses from Orwell and Descartes have to do with the application and separation of this knowledge from other aspects of the mind, which as previously mentioned can be owned. Orwell’s doublespeak when applied to the context asks how the victim can apply their knowledge, if even possible. In another manner, Descartes’ demon adds pressure to separate and discard irrelevant knowledge to create new opinions and beliefs. Although Descartes’ ideas on the mind are not necessarily supportive, especially when considering his understanding of the certainty of perception in that those things perceived and judged by the mind are certain because he believes in God’s power over the mind. By logically categorizing and applying pertinent information in relevant contexts it can be supported that knowledge is a separate entity in its own right and that

other minds are thus capable of using it without experiences. Nguyen’s application of these theories isolated from the context of social experiences boosts their power when eventually added to relevant social experiences. As in the name, the “social-epistemic reboot” deals directly with the social interactions of individuals both in and outside of the echo chamber. Nguyen explores the excessive confidence apparent in those victims of the chamber and epistemic bubbles which stem from the ‘echo’ in the chambers. The confirmation bias present to the victims does little except decrease their autonomy to seemingly improve the validity of their own opinions. Nguyen’s solution utilizes the intellectual autonomy of every individual to increase the social interactions from which victims can be exposed to and adopt new ideologies from outside other minds. The “social-epistemic reboot” relies almost exclusively on these interactions in which the circular flow of the reboot develops so that victims can adapt to and finalize their personal beliefs through long-term exposure to outsiders. In “The Traditional Problem of Body and Mind” the author reasons that because we rely so heavily on our own experiences and beliefs, even if other minds are not capable of rational thinking, we still assume that their behaviors are processed the same as our own because of the similarities in the stimulus and reactions we perceive. The difference between the problem of other minds and Nguyen’s solution is the difference portion - that is, that outsiders socialized into the echo chamber do not behave the same as those manipulated in the chamber. However, despite Nguyen’s great argument, the problem of other minds can be argued against. In his essay, Nguyen claims that group unanimity is only another subset of an “echo” inside the echo chamber. This disputes the problem of other minds by suggesting that other minds are all the same as the original mind in question and further pulls into question the validity of his “social-epistemic reboot”. Nguyen’s solution cannot be applicable if he suggests both that

a victimized mind believes only in agreeable persons as well as needs opposing views to be removed from the cycle. The isolation of an echo chamber directly limits the kinds of interactions required for the level of social interactions needed for the reboot. This implies that the integrity of the problem of other minds is too weak to be used as a vital part of the reboot because the source of the problem is stronger than the solution can solve. Nguyen’s analysis of echo chambers and their effects on individual minds calls upon the problem of other minds greatly. The social involvement that his argument proves to be both useful and vital shows another facet of the problem of other minds that is not taken into consideration frequently. His presumption of the problem’s validity only aids his exploration through his “social-epistemic reboot” and the changes it may make possible for those victims stuck in their bubbles and chambers. The reset function of the reboot focuses on the importance of the existence of others and how their perspectives can help modify the mistruths believed by victims once trapped....