Scan barcode
user_3131695191912's review against another edition
First off, I don't like reading books in dutch. Furthermore, the book feels really speculative and slow-going. I'm not interested enough in anthropology to continue reading.
kklecornu's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
I wanted to rate this higher but it mostly felt like droning background noise (my fault for listening on audiobook - maybe I would have felt more engaged in the text if reading print.) Still, there were some interesting questions about the current world in which humans have taken the place of gods, and a future world in which algorithms will take the place of humans.
heidilreads's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting book. It might not be the first thing I'd pick up, but it has some interesting food for thought... Except when he speculates that we are gonna live to 160 years old. Yikes.
julianaparra's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
acousticdefacto's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
3.5
thechaliceofaries's review against another edition
3.0
A very speculative but entertaining read. I didn’t enjoy it as much as I did its predecessor, Sapiens. I found it to repeat many of the ideas that were introduced in the previous book, such as those on intersubjective reality and monotheistic religions. I liked the passages emphasising the cruelty of the meat and dairy industries, as well as how “data-ism” (the worship of the mass amounts of data we all generate) could be the next great human religion. His points were all interesting but seem geared more towards shocking and dazzling his readers than educating them. While it was fun to give thought to the insights in this book, I would say that reading it is more likely to send you on a spectacular intellectual rollercoaster than really teach you anything.
rkcobb's review against another edition
israeli man seemingly approving of billionaires living forever and saying that sugar and suicide are more deadly than warfare due to obesity but not realizing that poverty and the current shape of the economy is the reason. he’s just very shortsighted in his reasoning
greden's review against another edition
4.0
Harari explains how humanity has shifted away from a God-centered view and into humanistic religion, and we're now headed toward either a techno-humanistic religion or a data-centred religion.
After the "death of God", people have shifted toward humanistic thinking, but not ceased with religions, and Harari argues that many modern ideas such as countries, corporations, capitalism, communism, etc. are religions. And the meaning people derive from their lives is (still) based on fantasy. For example, before people would sacrifice their life for the glory of a god, and now, modern soldiers are told to sacrifice our lives for the idea of liberty.
There is no real need for spirituality in religion, Harrari argues. He says that the two are actually at odds to each other. Spirituality is about individualistic searching and exploration while religion is about organizing society and adhering to the rules.
In the West today we are encouraged to find the answers within, where our feelings and authentic self is the source of truth. Harari argues that our advancements in science will render liberal humanism obsolete, and says that the myth of the individual, the authentic self and the soul does not make sense. The soul cannot co-exist with the theory of evolution. The myth of the individual cannot co-exist with neuroscience. He argues that science can prove that all organisms, including humans, are just a bunch of biochemical algorithms, with no free-will. And these algorithms can be optimized by technology.
Harari explains how AI outperforms humans in many fields, including composing classical music and knowing our personality better than our spouse. AI will only get more intelligent, and it will know ourselves better than we do. Why trust our gut instinct when an AI with billions of data-points, can accurately predict the best action to take? The new religion of data is emerging, where data will provide the answers to all our problems.
As value is increasingly becoming digital instead of physical resources, warfare will probably not be about conquering the land, but having control over data and technology. The legislation of democratic governments will be too slow to keep up with technological progress and because of the ever-increasing complexity of the world and centralized governments will no longer work. Governments will be less about leading a country, and more about keeping order.
Religion is increasingly becoming obsolete in moral questions since the new ethical questions are about radically different technologies, with the new technology, holding tight to religious texts will not prove the same benefit as it once did. Religious fundamentalists and radicals are not really worth serious concern anymore, and the new technological age will simply brush them aside.
Although Harari makes strong points against religion, I find some of it a bit reductionistic. "Religious people are on the same developmental stage as five-year-olds, as they think the entire universe revolves around them."
Harari admits consciousness is a complete mystery. Why have consciousness with all our actions are determined by biochemical algorithms? It's a question worth meditating on. Harari however, disregards its importance, as the advent of AI will decouple intelligence from consciousness.
I disagree when it comes to the unimportance of conscious individual. Harari says "observe your mind for one minute" and since our thoughts come out of nowhere, we see that we don't have control over our stream of thoughts, there is nobody in control. There is no self. Just biochemical algorithms. He points out the narrative-self/experiencing-self dichotomy, and some experiments in how left brain/right brain hemispheres, etc in order to point out there's no oneself and the unimportance of consciousness. For instance, people would rather have a mediocre vacation they can remember than a fantastic vacation, but with their memory erased. The narrative mind is more valued than the experiencing mind. Moreover, as we're entering the data-age, people are increasingly concerned about documenting and sharing the vacation more than experiencing (or even remembering.)
I mean, the idea that we're made out of many parts are not new. Okay, we're complex. Thoughts and ideas come out of nowhere, and sure, the details of conscious experience might not be as important as the narrative meaning. But I'm not on board of the uselessness of consciousness.
My view on consciousness is when an intelligent system has multiple sensory inputs that have relevant information to each other, a space is generated in which they can be interpreted simultaneously and connect to generate meaning to perform more coordinated action. Is this view flawed and incomplete? Yes. Contemplating consciousness is the most reliable way to get a headache. But I just cannot accept that consciousness is merely observing reality, an unimportant phenomenon which accidentally happened to exist in biological creatures that gave rise to a new age of machines that has no need for it.
The book is pretty powerful. It's dark and nihilistic, and I wouldn't recommend this to everyone and anyone. It paints a sort of "Huxleyian" view of the future and shows how we're already on our way. Larger inequality due to advancing body/mind-enhancing technology. It predicts that human beings will be obsolete. And our privacy will most likely be lost. We will lose our most human features, etc etc...
I agree with a lot, but I think there is plenty of room to be optimistic about humanism. For instance, I reject the idea that human beings will be obsolete, in fact, our work will be more interesting. As automation increases, our work will function at a higher abstraction. Our work will be evermore meaningful and less repetitious. Our work will be more about how to interact with our intelligent tools, rather than the monotonous work it does for us.
After the "death of God", people have shifted toward humanistic thinking, but not ceased with religions, and Harari argues that many modern ideas such as countries, corporations, capitalism, communism, etc. are religions. And the meaning people derive from their lives is (still) based on fantasy. For example, before people would sacrifice their life for the glory of a god, and now, modern soldiers are told to sacrifice our lives for the idea of liberty.
There is no real need for spirituality in religion, Harrari argues. He says that the two are actually at odds to each other. Spirituality is about individualistic searching and exploration while religion is about organizing society and adhering to the rules.
In the West today we are encouraged to find the answers within, where our feelings and authentic self is the source of truth. Harari argues that our advancements in science will render liberal humanism obsolete, and says that the myth of the individual, the authentic self and the soul does not make sense. The soul cannot co-exist with the theory of evolution. The myth of the individual cannot co-exist with neuroscience. He argues that science can prove that all organisms, including humans, are just a bunch of biochemical algorithms, with no free-will. And these algorithms can be optimized by technology.
Harari explains how AI outperforms humans in many fields, including composing classical music and knowing our personality better than our spouse. AI will only get more intelligent, and it will know ourselves better than we do. Why trust our gut instinct when an AI with billions of data-points, can accurately predict the best action to take? The new religion of data is emerging, where data will provide the answers to all our problems.
As value is increasingly becoming digital instead of physical resources, warfare will probably not be about conquering the land, but having control over data and technology. The legislation of democratic governments will be too slow to keep up with technological progress and because of the ever-increasing complexity of the world and centralized governments will no longer work. Governments will be less about leading a country, and more about keeping order.
Religion is increasingly becoming obsolete in moral questions since the new ethical questions are about radically different technologies, with the new technology, holding tight to religious texts will not prove the same benefit as it once did. Religious fundamentalists and radicals are not really worth serious concern anymore, and the new technological age will simply brush them aside.
Although Harari makes strong points against religion, I find some of it a bit reductionistic. "Religious people are on the same developmental stage as five-year-olds, as they think the entire universe revolves around them."
Harari admits consciousness is a complete mystery. Why have consciousness with all our actions are determined by biochemical algorithms? It's a question worth meditating on. Harari however, disregards its importance, as the advent of AI will decouple intelligence from consciousness.
I disagree when it comes to the unimportance of conscious individual. Harari says "observe your mind for one minute" and since our thoughts come out of nowhere, we see that we don't have control over our stream of thoughts, there is nobody in control. There is no self. Just biochemical algorithms. He points out the narrative-self/experiencing-self dichotomy, and some experiments in how left brain/right brain hemispheres, etc in order to point out there's no oneself and the unimportance of consciousness. For instance, people would rather have a mediocre vacation they can remember than a fantastic vacation, but with their memory erased. The narrative mind is more valued than the experiencing mind. Moreover, as we're entering the data-age, people are increasingly concerned about documenting and sharing the vacation more than experiencing (or even remembering.)
I mean, the idea that we're made out of many parts are not new. Okay, we're complex. Thoughts and ideas come out of nowhere, and sure, the details of conscious experience might not be as important as the narrative meaning. But I'm not on board of the uselessness of consciousness.
My view on consciousness is when an intelligent system has multiple sensory inputs that have relevant information to each other, a space is generated in which they can be interpreted simultaneously and connect to generate meaning to perform more coordinated action. Is this view flawed and incomplete? Yes. Contemplating consciousness is the most reliable way to get a headache. But I just cannot accept that consciousness is merely observing reality, an unimportant phenomenon which accidentally happened to exist in biological creatures that gave rise to a new age of machines that has no need for it.
The book is pretty powerful. It's dark and nihilistic, and I wouldn't recommend this to everyone and anyone. It paints a sort of "Huxleyian" view of the future and shows how we're already on our way. Larger inequality due to advancing body/mind-enhancing technology. It predicts that human beings will be obsolete. And our privacy will most likely be lost. We will lose our most human features, etc etc...
I agree with a lot, but I think there is plenty of room to be optimistic about humanism. For instance, I reject the idea that human beings will be obsolete, in fact, our work will be more interesting. As automation increases, our work will function at a higher abstraction. Our work will be evermore meaningful and less repetitious. Our work will be more about how to interact with our intelligent tools, rather than the monotonous work it does for us.