Date sent: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:43:29 -0800 From: Paul Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Singularity vs Free Will: False Dichotomy? Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Damien Broderick wrote:
> > Consider this idiocy, cited from the above RAW extract:
> > < To understand neurological space, Dr. Leary assumes that the nervous
> > system consists of eight potential circuits, or "gears," or mini-brains.
> > Four of these brains are in the usually active left lobe and are concerned
> > with our terrestrial survival; four are extraterrestrial, reside in the
> > "silent" or inactive right lobe, and are for use in our future evolution.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This explains why the right lobe is usually inactive at this stage of our
> > development, >
> > I don't understand why or how the intelligent and informed people on this
> > list keep quoting such gibberish. (The nonsense above comports in a
> > sinister way, so to speak, with the thread a few days back suggesting the
> > women are `right-brain dominant'...)
> Perhaps you should clarify why this is exactly gibberish. Although I agree,
> that a clear cut black and white distinction between so called "right-brained"
> thinking and "left brained" thinking has since been show to be imprecise in
> describing actual localized brain activity, as a "model" it's hard to argue
> that there aren't different modes of conscious and intelligent experience.
> Does it matter as much then, what part of the brain these types of thinking
> are taking place? Personally I could care less. Your going to have hard time
> convincing me that the cogitation I use while juggling is the same as when I
> solve a mathematical equation or compose a poem. Unless you haven't
> experienced the "highs" of marijuana or LSD, your also going to have hard time
> convincing me that such psychedelic states are qualitatively the same as what
> I am experiencing while driving my car to work.
> Since you seem to be suggesting that models of intelligence positing the
> existence of brain states beyond the conventional linear styles of thinking
> are gibberish, what are your alternatives?
> Paul Hughes
I think the operative gibberish phrase is "for use in our further evolution." Since evolution is in response to preexisting actual environments, not in anticipation of future possible surroundings (and indeed can only be this way if its mechanism is indeed natural selection), the above phrase is so full of fuzzyminded b.s. that no
respectable bovine would defecate it. Joe