[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)
Paul D. Fernhout
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
Sat Nov 7 22:54:07 CET 2009
It seems to me on this one topic of cognition and the brain, Michel had a
knee-jerk reaction on what, to many, is essentially a religious issue
(essentially, can machines have souls?). And if the rest of the conversation
was not getting a little heated, he might have reflected more on that.
I still agree with Michel on most of his other reply points. Andrew started
arguing for a paradigm of capital concentration to force engineers and
scientists to use assignable curiosity to study what he wanted them to
study, and then he started talking a lot about certainty in a very short
way. So, I agree with Michel's points on both those, and I did not see him
as missing what Andrew was saying, as far as those two points.
But, I agree with you here on this as far as the brain. My BA was in
cognitive psychology, for what that is worth. But many of these issues
really do become religious issues (and I don't mean "religious" as in
biased, I mean religious as in metaphysical). Thus my attempt at an open
non-critical and somewhat ambiguous reply. :-) But, much in the field of
consciousness research is like that -- ambiguous, uncertain, depends on
Stan Rhodes wrote:
> This needs to stop. Period.
> I am offended you would quote some anonymous source as some sort of
> authority, weaving it into a quick hit-piece.
> You do not understand what Andrew is saying in nearly every email, and he
> attempts to tell you that, but you will not listen. Although I have a few
> very minor quibbles with what he said, all he said is not controversial to
> me, with my limited knowledge of cognitive science.
> If you know another cognitive scientist, let him or her join the discussion
> reasonably with full visibility. So much for honest debate...
> -- Stan
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> I just forwarded the text of another scientist, which shows how vacuous
>> your claim for absolute truth is,
>> I"m really sorry, but your methods are so much worse than even magical
>> thinking, and can only lead to grave disasters for mankind. Humans are
>> neither purely animals nor machines, but complex entities with emergent
>> behaviour. In fact, there is no more magical thinking that the double claim
>> that 1) science and math are the only ways of knowing; and 2) that your
>> individual interpretation of math and science is the only valid one. This
>> absolute certainty equates with absolute disaster. It's a good reminder of
>> why democracy is so necessary to keep totalitarian approaches in check. Your
>> claim that humans are just computers and therefore machines, are in fact
>> extremist interpretations, not generally shared by the scientific community.
>> I'm not surprised that it is associated with a call for more concentration
>> of wealth as a guarantee for more innovation, and that you ignore the
>> studies showing how more concentrated capital has actually hurt innovation
>> in Silicon Valley. But don't let trival things as facts stand in the way of
>> your certainties.
>> I'm not surprised that you are unwilling to submit your claims to a body of
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, J. Andrew Rogers <reality.miner at gmail.com
>>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>> The statement that the brain is just a computer, is highly
>>>> even in science, but I'm not going to claim your ignorant of that, but
>>>> probably choose to simply ignore it.
>>> Sorry, but it is only controversial to you, you just choose to ignore
>>> the mountains of evidence.
>>> There is no measure by which a brain does not have the precise
>>> properties you would predict for a fairly conventional finite
>>> computer. If you have evidence to the contrary, please publish it.
>>> You would be famous.
>>> Why would we believe in something that is contrary to all evidence?
>>> Even if it *was* incorrect, it would be a safe scientific claim
>>> because there is no contrary evidence to date.
>>>> Humans and groups are indeed predictable to a certain degree, more than
>>>> people realize, but not absolutely and without limit.
>>> Sure, and the mathematical properties of this fact are well understood.
>>>> 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
>>>> discussion on it, since it is an obvious truth.
>>> Seriously, this isn't even an interesting topic. It is settled
>>> science except for people unfamiliar with or unwilling to give up
>>> their magical thinking. It is the same reason I don't engage in
>>> arguments about creationism versus evolution, there is no margin in it
>>> even among educated folk.
>>> 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;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
More information about the p2presearch