Günther, One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice demonstrated blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as follows:
1) that reductionism did not apply to humans, and 2) that when applied to non-humans, the non-human could be reduced to an automata. I'm not sure which I find most disappointing: the fact of the egoism amply demonstrated by this postulate, or the blind acceptance of it by so many other modern "reductionists". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. I mean after all, this is the same gene pool (evolved 360 years) that elected George W. Bush as our United States president. Twice. As to your question regarding a non-egoistic explanation: recognition of the fact that we simply do not yet understand enough about the complexities of organic intelligence to be making stupid, simplistic reductionist claims about its nature would be a good start... Cheers, --Doug (BTW, why are so many Santa Feans sitting in front of their computers today, instead of being outside enjoying this glorious fall weather? I plan on immediately correcting this situation, myself.) On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Doug, > > > > > Why is reductionism simplistic and egotistic? What would a > non-simplistic and non-egotistic explanation be? > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
