Practicing to expertise the psycho-physical values of the senses would go a lot further than we go at present in comprehending the world through our mind but we demean that and say that starving is good for the development of such work. Perhaps we could even think more than implications of seven if we did. Art is not correlative to expertise but Foundational.
REH -----Original Message----- From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:38 PM To: mspen...@tallships.ca; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Joe Stiglitz is a SOCIOLIST Stafford Beer once said that we need a meta mind or a stronger level of intelligence to understand man's mind. Our mind seems complex because we can't stand back and see it in its wholeness. arthur -----Original Message----- From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:43 PM To: futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] Joe Stiglitz is a SOCIOLIST Ray wrote: > Complexity is not a description of a state of nature but speaks to the > competence of the human mind observing it. Nothing is complex if you > understand it, comprehend its structure and know how to use it. "Complexity" is now a technical term. If you use it in the quotidian sense meaning "complicated and not easy for me to understand" in a context where the technical sense might be understood, you now have to use some semantic flag to indicate that intended meaning. The nature of "complexity" in the technical sense is that a system that is complex has so very many parts, so very many relationships between parts and so many possible state transitions that it is intrinsically, provably not predictable, not, in any conventional sense, fully understandable. Admittedly, the human brain is the most complex thing -- in the technical sense -- that we have to study and we have, as yet, no understanding of how (what we cavalierly call) mind or consciousness is engendered by it. So we can't strictly rule out the possibility that, at least in some cases where the right observations can be made, a mind can gain some menaingful grasp of a complex (technical sense) system that may seem, from a computational standpoint, nearly miraculous. That is the reason why I find it incorrect to scornfully dismiss a whole raft of stuff that falls under the heading of "spiritual" or "mystic", even though I regard the vast majority of such stuff as, at best, gratifying wanking and at worst, fraudulent or self-deceptive bogosity. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ mspen...@tallships.ca /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
