en
John Brockman

What Have You Changed Your Mind About?

Giv mig besked når bogen er tilgængelig
Denne bog er ikke tilgængelig i streaming pt. men du kan uploade din egen epub- eller fb2-fil og læse den sammen med dine andre bøger på Bookmate. Hvordan overfører jeg en bog?
Even geniuses change their minds sometimes.
Edge (www.edge.org), the influential online intellectual salon, recently asked 150 high-powered thinkers to discuss their most telling missteps and reconsiderations: What have you changed your mind about? The answers are brilliant, eye-opening, fascinating, sometimes shocking, and certain to kick-start countless passionate debates.
Steven Pinker on the future of human evolution • Richard Dawkins on the mysteries of courtship • SAM HARRIS on the indifference of Mother Nature • Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the irrelevance of probability • Chris Anderson on the reality of global warming • Alan Alda on the existence of God • Ray Kurzweil on the possibility of extraterrestrial life • Brian Eno on what it means to be a "revolutionary" • Helen Fisher on love, fidelity, and the viability of marriage • Irene Pepperberg on learning from parrots . . . and many others.
Denne bog er ikke tilgængelig i øjeblikket
366 trykte sider
Udgivelsesår
2009
Har du allerede læst den? Hvad synes du om den?
👍👎

Citater

  • Soliloquios Literarioshar citeretfor 5 år siden
    But we tend to not know what we know. We can speak properly without knowing how we do it. We don’t know how we comprehend. We just do.
  • Soliloquios Literarioshar citeretfor 5 år siden
    Finally, I’ve come to think that identifying scientificality with falsifiability lets certain nonscientific theories off the hook, by saying that we should try to find good reasons to believe whether a theory is true or false only when that theory is called “science.” It allows believers to protect their pet theories by saying that they can’t be, and shouldn’t be, subject to falsification, just because they’re clearly not scientific theories. Take the theory that there’s an omnipotent, omniscient, beneficent God. It may not be a scientific hypothesis, but it seems to me to be eminently falsifiable; in fact, it seems to have been amply falsified. But because falsifiability is seen as demarcating the scientific, and since theism is so clearly not scientific, believers in religious ideologies get a free pass. The same is true for many political ideologies. The parity between scientific and nonscientific ideas is concealed by thinking that there’s a simple test that distinguishes science from nonscience, and that that test is falsifiability.
  • Soliloquios Literarioshar citeretfor 5 år siden
    These are described as “subjective”—that is, experienced by a living organism—because they cannot be isolated from the subject experiencing them and measured quantitatively. What is often suggested as an explanation of this is evolutionary complexity: When an organism has a nervous system of sufficient complexity, subjective experience and feelings can arise. This implies that something totally new and qualitatively different can emerge from the interaction of “dead,” unfeeling components such as cell membranes, molecules, and electrical currents.

    But this implies getting something from nothing, which violates what I have learned about emergent properties: There is always a precursor property for any phenomenon, and you cannot just introduce a new dimension into the phase space of your model to explain the result. Qualities are different from quantities and cannot be reduced to them.

    So what is the precursor of the subjective experience that evolves in organisms? There must be some property of neurons or membranes or charged ions producing the electrical activity associated with the experience of feeling that emerges in the organism.

På boghylderne

fb2epub
Træk og slip dine filer (ikke mere end 5 ad gangen)