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

[Michel Bauwens]

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
scientists,

Michel

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
<reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> 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
> on
> > 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
> 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/20091108/10a361df/attachment.html>