[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 18:38:44 CET 2009
just a general statement: it is dangerous to base one's outlook on a
constantly evolving scientific interpretation. The fact is, a neoclassical
economist would reason in exactly the same way, and also claim that any
critic would lack knowledge.
The statement that the brain is just a computer, is highly controversial,
even in science, but I'm not going to claim your ignorant of that, but you
probably choose to simply ignore it.
Humans and groups are indeed predictable to a certain degree, more than
people realize, but not absolutely and without limit.
I don't think it would hurt if you'd put a minimum amount of self-doubt in
your statements, an awareness that your positions are not widely shared,
both within and without the scientific community. This doesn't make them
right or wrong, but since science evolves and gains new understandings all
the time, any radical self-identification with the state of knowledge at any
particular moment, is not a good cognitive strategy.
I'm just not used to this particular style of communication, which is why I
feel compelled to be more defensive and 'aggressive', something which is not
my habit ...
I would like to make a bet.
You state on the Edge, that the brain is just a computer, and if you're
right about the state of science, there should be absolutely no reaction on
discussion on it, since it is an obvious truth.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
<reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> > This would make sense, but only if you limit your vision of intelligence
> > something that is located in the brain.
> No, it doesn't matter where the intelligence is located. It is a
> property of the fabric of the universe(s). If this was not true, the
> laws of physics would necessarily be wildly different than what we
> > Sorry that is so sad, you are really taken the metaphor, and then
> > that the territory matches your 'map'.
> Uh, no. I'm talking about measurable properties that we've actually
> There is nothing magical about being ignorant of how a system works.
> > we are not talking about absolute claims, simple of feeling/thinking, and
> > not just calculating, human beings ..
> It is calculating, even if you are not aware of it. It is a basic
> theorem of information theory that a computer cannot be fully aware of
> nor perfectly predict its own state.
> > No no, I'm not underestimating it at all, but also not absolutising or
> > overestimating it.
> Yeah, but you also are completely unfamiliar with the state of human
> knowledge and capability on these matters. It is not an informed
> opinion. Humans, both as individuals and in groups, are highly
> predictable and manipulable at a level that most people would find
> Even though we have a hard time seeing it, computers have no problem
> doing so. We are much simpler machines than we like to pretend we are.
> J. Andrew Rogers
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch