[p2p-research] is the mind a computer
J. Andrew Rogers
reality.miner at gmail.com
Sun Nov 8 20:53:08 CET 2009
Allow me to clarify just these points, so that my assertions are
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Amongst the few extraordinary claims that require extraordianory evidence:
> 1) that the brain is just a computer and the human just a machine
I do make this claim, but it is not extraordinary given the
overwhelming quantities of scientific evidence that support this
> 2) that there is no controversy about this at all and that questioning that
> premise is ignorance not different from creationism
Let me re-requalify this: there is no controversy among people that
have significant technical expertise on the topic.
Creationism is a good analogy in that the majority of Americans
believe in creationism, but evolution is not a controversial
assumption among those that work in biosciences. Notice a pattern?
Belief that a claim is extraordinary by the population at large does
not make it so.
> 3) that there is nothing scientific about Howard Gardner's hypothesis, it is
> just new age bunk
This was battled out in the cognitive sciences a long time ago, and
multiple intelligence theory (MIT) lost because there are a number of
pretty obvious weaknesses to it. Popular flame war material back in
my CogSci days. It ultimately was discarded because it failed any kind
of rigorous scrutiny to support it and the evidence for it could be
explained much more simply in single intelligence terms. It was very
much an "epicycle" model of intelligence from back in the days when we
knew less about it.
When mathematics got around to formalizing the concept of
intelligence, MIT was already considered a dead hypothesis. The
mathematics just put the final nail in the coffin.
> 4) that we need more concentration of wealth to have more innovation
My stated position has always been that we need *less* concentration
of wealth, but apparently my argument was too nuanced for this list.
The level of reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Nor
does it speak well to the rigor of your argument that you feel it
necessary to invent strawmen to knock down that do not even represent
my beliefs, never mind what I actually wrote.
All of which betrays deep-seated intolerance for anyone that doesn't
subscribe to your groupthink even if those people have an interest in
building a true P2P society and economy. If you want P2P economics to
be anything but a fringe cult, you'll have to give up on the idea that
everyone trying to produce this result will mindlessly parrot your
particular beliefs. Doubly so when some of those beliefs have a
distinct anti-scientific patina.
J. Andrew Rogers
More information about the p2presearch