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

[Paul D. Fernhout]

:-)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
>