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

[Stan Rhodes]

Actually, I erred in my reading of your post.  I thought the block of text
between "I"m really sorry. . . " and ". . . certainties." was a
behind-the-scenes email quote from a scientist you had emailed about the
topic, and that you were "forwarding" that quote block.  In reality, you are
the author, and there is no anonymous author.  I did read the email several
times, but I made that mistake each time, because Setzer was quoted in
another email thread entirely. (No, I wasn't emailing drunk, although I was
tired.)

Please accept my apologies for that major error.

I still feel the paragraph was a hit-piece, because it portrays Andrew as
some sort of villain.  I also think that most of the "replies" to Andrew
were becoming thinly-veiled personal attacks with no constructive argument.
Basically, I've been uncomfortable the whole time.  And so, I spoke up.

A break is always good, from time to time.

-- Stan

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> what anonymous source, why is Setzer anonymous??
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091108/51d9bbe7/attachment.html>