[p2p-research] is the mind a computer

[Samuel Rose]

A little furthermore...

Richard Lewontin's "Triple helix: gene, organism, and environment"
explains why all living things are far more than machines/mechanisms.
No machine can match what is explained in triple helix.

When and if machines *do* come to this point, we'll need to come up
with a new name for them. They will no longer be "machines and
computers". This is not religion. it's complex adaptive systems.

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, J. Andrew Rogers, that a lot of this email is thinly
> disguised personal attack. overall, it's also propagandastic, in that
> it tries to lead you to a pre-established conclusion.
>
> The question of whether the brain is a computer is ridiculous to the
> extreme. The brain performs computation, and so it is a computer. Just
> as a living leaf on a plant performs photosynthesis and so is a solar
> energy catalyst, the same as photovoltaic cells.
>
> However, unlike the machines made by humans that we call computers and
> solar panels, living systems such as humans and trees are far more
> than  computers and solar catalysts. Even the leaf itself is more than
> just a solar catalyst. I would say that it is more dogmatic to insist
> that humans are machines, when there are mountains of evidence to show
> that humans are *radically* different than any machine you can name in
> at least thousands of ways.
>
> What more could possibly be said on this subject?
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
> <reality.miner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Allow me to clarify just these points, so that my assertions are
>> represented properly.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Amongst the few extraordinary claims that require extraordianory evidence:
>>>
>>> 1) that the brain is just a computer and the human just a machine
>>
>>
>> I do make this claim, but it is not extraordinary given the
>> overwhelming quantities of scientific evidence that support this
>> hypothesis.
>>
>>
>>> 2) that there is no controversy about this at all and that questioning that
>>> premise is ignorance not different from creationism
>>
>>
>> Let me re-requalify this: there is no controversy among people that
>> have significant technical expertise on the topic.
>>
>> Creationism is a good analogy in that the majority of Americans
>> believe in creationism, but evolution is not a controversial
>> assumption among those that work in biosciences.  Notice a pattern?
>> Belief that a claim is extraordinary by the population at large does
>> not make it so.
>>
>>
>>> 3) that there is nothing scientific about Howard Gardner's hypothesis, it is
>>> just new age bunk
>>
>>
>> This was battled out in the cognitive sciences a long time ago, and
>> multiple intelligence theory (MIT) lost because there are a number of
>> pretty obvious weaknesses to it.  Popular flame war material back in
>> my CogSci days. It ultimately was discarded because it failed any kind
>> of rigorous scrutiny to support it and the evidence for it could be
>> explained much more simply in single intelligence terms.  It was very
>> much an "epicycle" model of intelligence from back in the days when we
>> knew less about it.
>>
>> When mathematics got around to formalizing the concept of
>> intelligence, MIT was already considered a dead hypothesis. The
>> mathematics just put the final nail in the coffin.
>>
>>
>>> 4) that we need more concentration of wealth to have more innovation
>>
>>
>> My stated position has always been that we need *less* concentration
>> of wealth, but apparently my argument was too nuanced for this list.
>> The level of reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.  Nor
>> does it speak well to the rigor of your argument that you feel it
>> necessary to invent strawmen to knock down that do not even represent
>> my beliefs, never mind what I actually wrote.
>>
>> All of which betrays deep-seated intolerance for anyone that doesn't
>> subscribe to your groupthink even if those people have an interest in
>> building a true P2P society and economy.  If you want P2P economics to
>> be anything but a fringe cult, you'll have to give up on the idea that
>> everyone trying to produce this result will mindlessly parrot your
>> particular beliefs. Doubly so when some of those beliefs have a
>> distinct anti-scientific patina.
>>
>>
>> --
>> J. Andrew Rogers
>> realityminer.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>



-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan