F*ck Your Noise
Navigating Nonsense in a Hyperconnected World
In the beginning…
…about 2 years ago a thread began to emerge.
One end of this thread is the experience of being an individual, the other, of being inseparable from everyone and everything else. This thread appears in the context of a hyper-connected world with diminishing returns on the quantity of connections. The thread is the human condition drowning in too much noise and a lack of signal.
The thread has grown, vibrated, resonated, and now has my full attention. I started this Substack to explore my thoughts, experiences, and ideas on what it means to be an intrinsically networked individual. A node that cannot be disconnected. - Me in Welcome to 150 Dunbar Street
This one is for
author of The Self Advocating Autistic, as promised. Your writing moves me.Framework
This might get complex so I’m setting out a framework for what you are about to read.
Defining fact and separating fact from truth.
Defining fiction in relation to fact.
Examining the limitations of fact and fiction and their relationship to anxiety.
Signal and noise as an alternative mode of orientation.
Defining noise.
Defining signal.
Limitations of signal and the usefulness of noise.
Sense and meaning making.
A critique of this post.
Do you have snacks? Are you ready to dive in?
1. Latin: /factum/ - an occurrence or event
There are no facts, only interpretations. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Dictionary definitions of fact are not consistent. At their worst they are self-referential, circular arguments relating to truth, such as:
a thing that is known or proved to be true
reality, actuality, certainty, certitude, truth
Where the definition of truth is:
the quality or state of being true
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality
a fact or belief that is accepted as true
This makes my head spin just reading it! Any definition that refers to itself is essentially incomplete. It would be more honest to say, we can’t define fact or truth.
However, a more useful definition of fact is based in the Latin /factum/:
an occurrence or event
a piece of information
the whole story
Here we have separated fact from any claim of representing truth or reality. A fact is most meaningfully understood as a piece of information describing an occurrence or event. Facts are more likely to represent truth claims when we have direct experience of the event or occurrence in question.
For example, my cup of tea has gone cold whilst I figure out how to describe a fact.
2. Latin: /fictio/ - formed, contrived, simulated, imagined
In relation to an occurrence or event, fiction makes a statement as to whether the event actually happened or not. A fiction is not the opposite of a fact, but rather a claim to whether the event took place in reality or was simply imagined, or made up.
Fiction, other than the literary genre, is a game of probability, the statistical remainder of fact.
So when we talk about fact or fiction in relation to information or events we are really just rolling the dice on the probability that an event took place or not. Of course we do need to roll the dice. Without facts life is but a dream, or a nightmare!
This is where we find ourselves in our hyperconnected world. We are losing a sense of certainty as to whether an event actually took place. Whether a piece of information was contrived or imagined.
The dreamscapes or nightmares of virtual and augmented reality. The romanticism of technological transcendence as described by science-fiction, anime, and transhumanism. The religion of a conscious AI; a digital deity. The division of position, perception, ideology, and association are compounded by hyper-connectivity.
3. Limitations and anxiety
There are a number of intractable limitations on our capability to determine fact from fiction.
Proximity: The greater the spatial and/or temporal distance between us and the event, the lower the certainty of establishing certainty. If it happened on the other side of the world, or a 1000 years ago, you have less chance of establishing fact or fiction. When it happens to you, then you have more chance.
Complexity: The world of perception and experience is too complex to manage, we would drown in all the details. So our experience is constrained through narrow sensory perception and motivational perception.
“Our eyes can distinguish several million colours, our ears half a million tones, and our noses over a trillion different odours.” (Entangled Life, Sheldrake. M)
Sensory perception: Despite the immense range of colours, tones, and odours that we are able to perceive, they are but a fraction of what exists. We only see up to 60Hz (60 frames per sec). Our eyes can track higher frequencies but the signal is lost somewhere between the eye and the brain. So what we experience as sight is made up of new data (light) refreshed at 60Hz (60 times per sec) and the rest (the experience of continuous vision) is created from memory - what we perceive is largely created by what we think should be there. This is how slight of hand/magic works.
Motivational perception: Our perceptions, interpretations, and memories of events tend to be influenced by our desires, needs, emotions, and preconceptions. In other words, we often see what we want to see. This is an evolutionary bias to motivate us to locate what we need to survive, and feel reassured in doing so.
Objective truth: Fact and fiction attempt to make objective truth claims or, as I prefer, consensus reality claims. But we can’t even arrive at a consensus as to what is fact, let alone what this might reveal about truth and reality.
In our hyperconnected world we have access to far more information than we can make sense of. As I sit and write this I have music playing, my phone is pinging with notifications. I have several books partially read on my desk, and a podcast on YouTube paused.
The podcast is Bernardo Kastrup and Don Hoffman discussing whether we can mathematically model the experience of separateness (disassociated consciousness) from source (transpersonal consciousness / God / The Tao).
Amongst all these sources of information vying for my attention are incomplete ideas, mistakes, misunderstandings, misinformation, propaganda, lies, and bullshit (I’m using the technical term here).
The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or not. You may know some of these.
Is it any wonder that in general people are less certain and more anxious?
We are quite simple creatures really, we find comfort in the familiar, safety in what is known. The reliable, dependable, and predictable are our yardsticks for truth. The hermeneutics of beauty grounds us in reality. Yet, who but the wilfully ignorant can not be suspicious of what is presented as fact or fiction?
Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. - Henri Poincare
4. Signal and noise as an alternative mode of orientation
Signal detection theory (SDT) is used to measure how we make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, such as perceiving distance in fog.
The assumption is we are not passive receivers of information (facts or fictions), but are active decision-makers who make difficult perceptual judgments under conditions of uncertainty.
To move towards a life of serenity, rather than anxiety, we need to be able to make sense of our daily lives. What makes sense for each of us will be different because we are motivated toward different goals and have different experiences.
Tuning into what is salient and relevant to us, rather than trying to verify whether a specific event took place, mitigates anxiety.
5. Defining noise
Noise is the sensory input and intellectual inferences that prevent or distort the process of meaning-making. Noise is amplified by the proliferation of information sources, poorly explored assumptions, honest mistakes, and self-serving agendas.
Our attention is a currency and there are many competing for it; mobile devices facilitate a click bait culture of top 10 tips and secret life hacks. Algorithms exploit our confirmation biases to feed our existing beliefs.
In addition, propaganda has been in use for thousands of years (The Behistun Inscription of c. 515BC being an early example). Controlling the narrative has long been a way to maintain power, position, and ego in service of agenda.
This is not to say that all noise is nefarious or of ill-intent, far from it, there is many an honest misunderstanding that has prominence in our belief systems. We can see this by the very fact that our belief systems develop and change over time.
The endeavour to derive meaning is ongoing, human history is an enactment of this. Religion, science, art, and politics, have all contributed to both meaning and noise.
6. Defining signal
We are walking through a wild forest and we hear a rustle in the undergrowth. We could dismiss this as a meaningless sound, just noise.
If it is just the wind then that is all well and good, but what if it is a predator such as a hungry wolf? Chances are we are about to be killed and eaten, the sound is no longer a noise, it is a signal, in this case a signal of danger.
We can define signal as a sensory input or intellectual inference that contains information that we want. It is meaningful, and helps us to understand and make sense of the world.
Unfortunately signal has significant overlap with noise, and the two become confused, literally fused together, and require us to separate one from the other.
Relevance: An input, pattern, or stimulus is relevant if it contains information that is spatially, temporally, or epistemologically of use. To assume that an input is true is not necessary, it takes time and confirmation to establish truth, relevance is far more important.
The howl of a wolf that is the other side of an impassable ravine is far less relevant than the potential signal of a hungry predator in the undergrowth right behind us. Maybe the sound behind us is a false alarm, but we are better off not ignoring it for now.
How do we measure success in detecting and identifying relevant signal?
We are looking for a better fit with reality, this is not the same as “truth”, a better fit can be replaced with an even better fit. We are just trying to head in the right direction.
If an input or piece of information increases coherency and congruence when applied to multiple domains (is repeatable and reliable in different situations) then we have relevant signal. It is meaningful, and helps us to understand and make sense of the world.
7. Limitations of signal and the usefulness of noise
The limitations of signal rest firmly on our shoulders, on our ability to acknowledge our own heuristics and mental models.
As signal needs interpretation, the limitations of its usefulness depend on our ability to recognise our own biases. I’ll write a full post on this soon, but examples are confirmation bias, ingroup bias, normalcy bias, and social proof.
Similarly, the mental models we apply to world need to be regularly checked for relevance and fitness to contemporary situations. Models such as the map is not the territory, randomness, compounding, and feedback loops are useful, until they are not!
The usefulness of noise is rarely mentioned but is very important. Noise disrupts signal, which means it can disrupt our assumptions, biases, and generalisations. We need both signal and noise to increase our sense-making.
8. Sense and meaning making
We mustn’t forget that we are consciousness embodied in sensory organisms. That our bodies are embedded in environments that we cannot escape from. Our senses are our primary means of collecting information to understand the world.
This is why we say things like “make sense of” and have words like sensible, sensitive, nonsense, sensational, senseless, and sensual.
We also have different perspectives and different experiences, this can add to the scope of understanding, but get in the way of identifying “facts”. We make sense from the position of our perspective. Finally, we participate in the process of sense-making. It is dynamic, not static.
Meaning-making is different, it is about significance. It is how we turn sensory experience and knowledge into an apparatus of shared understanding. It is also how we transcend the temporal and existential. It is what separates us from sensors and measuring devices.
Shared meaning making is what helps us establish a sense of belonging. A meaningful purposeful life requires the shared meaning-making. Shared because we are intrinsically networked.
I put forward the idea that ‘signal and noise’ are a more appropriate mode of orientation for sense and meaning-making than ‘fact and fiction’. As such they offer a better path toward serenity and away from anxiety.
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
9. A critique of this post
This post has been a challenge to write, partly because I was thinking through it as I wrote it; a slightly organised stream of consciousness.
There are relevant areas that are beyond the scope of this post, such as the nature of truth and reality. Some areas are not adequately researched and this is more like an expression of intuition than a definitive work. It is definitely a work in progress.
Finally I really want to hear from you. It would be tremendously helpful to hear your critique. What did you think as you read this? What holes would you like to poke in my ideas? What resonated with you?
Neil, this is a really powerful bit of writing. As you tap each concept onto your screen word by word, I can practically feel your synapses firing and your brain pulsing with ideas.
As an alternative to both fact and fiction in sense-checking and meaning, I enjoy the idea of signal and noise.
I believe I have discovered my distinctive neurodivergent means of exploiting loudness and noise to find my signals at pivotal points when hyper-connectivity affects my consciousness, and I need to sense-check overwhelm, which is my signal to find quiet and recheck for meaning both inside of me and outside of me as to what I am hearing and processing that affects my values and beliefs.
It was an extremely intricate read. I might find the opportunity to listen to the podcast you mentioned this week, and I know it will stimulate my brain as well. However, I'm hoping there won't be too much noise and distraction within or around me so I can absorb it, take what I need from its insights, and leave what I don't.
Joe Hendley also discussed sense-checking in numerous other settings with reference to the breakdown of trust in the modern world. I found this to be interesting, and it got me thinking about how I trust what I know or how I know what I know—an entirely different tangent of epistemology I could go down, but it would take too long.
However, I believe that the intimacy of trust goes beyond just interpersonal connections to encompass environments and physical structures, leave alone the cacophony on the Internet and social media.
I think that trust, for me, is a sense of security that reaffirms my values and beliefs while giving room for my own prejudices to be exposed and called out. It can be difficult to experience this, but I think it is what it is.
After that, as a result of such exploratory intimacy, I experience a sense of calm, aware choice with related effects. Intricacy and intelligent intuition are indeed somewhat similar to what is felt in this piece.
I appreciate you including a reference to me in it.
Have a good week ahead.