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

Sat Nov 7 23:04:38 CET 2009

Paul,

Scary as it seems...I think we agree again.  Sort of thought you were a kook
when you first started writing a lot on the list...but now that we agree a
lot...my opinion of you is rather high.  ;)

Ryan

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:

> Stan-
>
> 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
> assumptions. etc.
>
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
>
> Stan Rhodes wrote:
>
>> Michel,
>>
>> 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
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>

-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091107/21436a5a/attachment.html>