[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)

[Michel Bauwens]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:52 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
<reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> There *is* a fixed upper bound on true intelligence. Or at least there
> >> better be; an awful lot of modern technology depends on that theorem.
> >
> > I'm ready to believe that, though I'm sceptical, any literature that's
> not
> > full of math on this?
>
>
> It makes sense if you think about it, a region of space has a finite
> information capacity. The exact capacity is not important, only that
> it is finite.  This strictly bounds the state of any dynamic in that
> space.
>

This would make sense, but only if you limit your vision of intelligence to
something that is located in the brain. Nevertheless, I accept the argument
that it is finite, but a finitude that is far from stretched yet. There is a
massive amount of underused intelligence there, and lots of room for
intelligence enhancement.


>
>
> > Yes indeed: emotion, myth, empathy, meditative witnessing ... Do you
> > seriously think people didn't 'know" anything before the advent of math
> and
> > science??
>
>
> The human brain is an inductive computer, it does not learn anything
> any other way no matter what labels you put on that learning. That is
> the flexibility and power of it.
>


Sorry that is so sad, you are really taken the metaphor, and then believing
that the territory matches your 'map'. We used to think that the brain was
like a steam machine (freud), now computer programmers think it's a
computer, and in your case, literally it seems. Judging from such
statements, it would seem that humanistic education has totally collapsed in
the technical field, all hope for complex understanding abolished ... it's a
frightening thought ...



>
> You don't need to understand the laws of thermodynamics and heat
> engines to drive an automobile, but you are most certainly *following*
> those laws even if you are ignorant of them.
>
>
> > If you have a life partner, does she expect you to 'know' you love
> > her/him by reference to math and science ???
>
>
> In her case, she would dismiss any absolute claims about such things
> as transparent nonsense, and she would be correct. She's satisfied
> with the reality.
>

we are not talking about absolute claims, simple of feeling/thinking, and
not just calculating, human beings ..

>
>
> > No, human beings, both individual and as societies are 'intentional', and
> > have subjectivity and intersubjectivity, and plain material redutionism,
> or
> > subtle systemic reductionism, is poor science. We are not planes and
> dots.
> > This is not to say that reductionism is not useful and productive, as
> long
> > as it is recontextualized and part of interdisciplinary approaches that
> take
> > into account human depth. Math and models can help explain human and
> social
> > dynamics, but the map is never territory.
>
>
> You grossly underestimate the susceptibility of these systems to
> mathematical analysis and manipulation. Human societies are not as
> complex and unpredictable as you think they are. No surprise there, it
> was demonstrated in the 1950s(!) that computers can reliably
> inductively reverse engineer human thought processes, practical
> scaling limitations notwithstanding.  Our math and computers have only
> gotten better.
>


No no, I'm not underestimating it at all, but also not absolutising or
overestimating it.



>
>
> >> Huh? Neither Wikipedia or Arduino are impossible in theory. It is
> >> silly to assert as much. Indeed, they are *expected* in theory.
> >
> > Not the people I've read. Wikipedia was widely ridiculed in its early
> days,
> > and still is in countries like France; and we had a long conversation on
> the
> > list a few years back about the impossibility of doing open hardware
> circuit
> > boards ..
>
>
> You are confusing some random opinion on *practicality* with a
> rigorous statement of *possibility*.
>
> It is plainly obvious that there is no principle of the universe that
> prevents open hardware circuit boards.
>

great, we do agree on that then <g>

>
>
> --
>  J. Andrew Rogers
> realityminer.blogspot.com
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091108/4aaef3c4/attachment.html>