<$BlogRSDUrl$>
eripsa
thinking is dangerous

119 dangerous ideas

1.14.2006
Dangerous Idea 120: Ending any list with a prime number.

Courtesy of D&D.

From The Edge World Question Center:

The Edge Annual Question - 2006

WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?


Pinker apparently offered up the question, and the responses are all over the map and really interesting. Here's one of note, from Barry Smith:

What We Know May Not Change Us
...

We are perhaps incapable of treating others as mere machines, even if that turns out to be what we are. The self-conceptions we have are firmly in place and sustained in spite of our best findings, and it may be a fact about human beings that it will always be so. We are curious and interested in neuroscientists findings and we wonder at them and about their applications to ourselves, but as the great naturalistic philosopher David Hume knew, nature is too strong in us, and it will not let us give up our cherished and familiar ways of thinking for long. Hume knew that however curious an idea and vision of ourselves we entertained in our study, or in the lab, when we returned to the world to dine, make merry with our friends our most natural beliefs and habits returned and banished our stranger thoughts and doubts. It is likely, as this end of the year, that whatever we have learned and whatever we know about the error of our thinkings and about the fictions we maintain, they will still remain the most dominant guiding force in our everyday lives. We may not be comforted by this, but as creatures with minds who know they have minds — perhaps the only minded creatures in nature in this position — we are at least able to understand our own predicament.


Addendum: Of course, I'd say that we're barely capable of treating machines as 'mere machines'.

Also worth the read: Kosslyn turns Spinozistic out of nowhere.
17:42 :: :: eripsa :: permalink