Comments on: Completely Mental

By: dzwonki polifoniczne

dzwonki polifoniczne — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:55:16 +0000

Mein Hobby ist es Gästebücher zu besuchen. Das ist immer ganz interessant und widerspiegelt so, was die Leute im Internet wirklich denken. War auch interessant bei Dir ! Bis zum nächsten Mal. All The Best OfNew Year. Sorry for my english i’am from Germany.

By: clew

clew — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:37:56 +0000

So – has “David Hume” managed to represent units of mentation in a cellular automaton?

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:08:43 +0000

“Adam Smith’s” real name is George Goodman. He used it back in the 60s, when it allowed him to keep his job as a portfolio manager while still writing satirical columns.

By: Belle Waring

Belle Waring — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:22:10 +0000

Yes, I too read his name as Sid Barrett. Maybe there’s been a typo somewhere along the line and this explains the whole crazy thing…I’m sure Sid Barrett’s theories about mentality would be equally interesting, especially if set to strange tunes of a curiously arrhythmic nature.

By: Phillip J. Birmingham

Phillip J. Birmingham — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 04:22:53 +0000

Heh. I read “Sid Barnett” as “Sid Barrett” at first. It made lots of sense to me that way.

By: JW

JW — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 04:20:46 +0000

Is the contemporary economics writer Adam Smith not really named “Adam Smith”? I had always assumed it was. I mean, if Mr. and Mrs. Hume (does Brit have kids?) decided to name their son David, I wouldn’t at all fault him for publishing philosophy books under his own name?

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:24:32 +0000

Yeah, “Adam Smith” was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read this post too. He’s written a whole handful of good books. But Kieran, did you actually read this book? Why? Life is too short for this kind of thing….

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:08:10 +0000

Having said that, The Money Game by “Adam Smith” is a bloody good book, so it’s a poor rule that has no exception.

By: freddie

freddie — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:55:56 +0000

Why would anyone use a fake name for what he or she considers important work unless sfrom a fear that there might be reprisals of some sort or that The Authorities might use the materials against him. And how pretentious to use the name of a well-known person!

By: mitch

mitch — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:45:02 +0000

Further comment (comments aren't working at the guy's website yet!): The book apparently resembles Carnap's The logical structure of the world, which also inventoried the elements of experience, and claimed that all concepts were logical constructions from them. For that matter, Kant did something similar in his enumeration of elementary forms of judgement (although I don't think he ever got around to describing their rules of combination). In my view, if Mr Barnett really wants his work studied, he should take the plunge and release the full text online, perhaps under a Creative Commons license.

By: mitch

mitch — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:12:16 +0000

I’d like to know what D.H.’s answer to the mind/matter problem is. In his conclusion he says, “From one’s inescapable elemental perspective, the universe is constituted from one’s elemental mental experiences…” If “the universe” here is meant to denote the whole of reality, then this appears to be an assertion of solipsistic idealism. If “the universe” here simply refers to the universe of one’s experience (one’s lifeworld, if you will), then it’s reasonable enough, but it’s only an epistemological and phenomenological statement, not touching on issues of fundamental ontology. Looking at the contents, with its references to “behavioral… [and] evolutionary superfluity of mental experiences”, I would guess that “universe” here means “lifeworld”, and that the mind/matter theory espoused is some form of functionalism.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:21:46 +0000

What is Sid Barnett's background? There was a discussion (actually, it's a recurring discussion) on sci.physics that has informed my view of "crankery". A signal characteristic of cranks is their paranoia, hostility, and above all ignorance, regarding prior work in the field they are attempting to revolutionize. They are usually rather jealous that their sui generis theory might be corrupted by knowing too much about what other people think. There is some justification for this fear, of course. I think all creative but responsible thinkers deal with this difficulty. This is a bit of a personal issue for me, including the subject matter. I have a significant amoung of undergraduate philosophy, and am, for a layperson, somewhat aware of episotomology and am quite aware of current thought in cognitive science, AI, complexity theory, and some related fields. I've developed over many years a loose, undisciplined epistomology that I think possible has great value, and some people with much more expertise than I have concurred. The thing is, much of my way of thinking about the process of truth-seeking is influenced by the modern practice of science--as such, I tend to see having a really, really good original and powerful idea as rather more mundane than many expect and, in any event, only the first step. Furthermore, one simply can't be ignorant of prior work in the field. It will inevitably offer critiques and corrections, fill in gaps, and act as a rigorizing influence. My expectation is that were I to get a PhD in philosophy (or somesuch) and work on my epistomology, it would likely in its deepest essence be very similar to how I now conceive it. Does that mean that working through the system would be a waste of time? Not at all, as, again, the difference may be between having a really good idea and having a really good, rigorous, highly structured and easily defended idea. And that may make all the difference. Finally, it's simply a pragmatic fact that one needs certain credentials and experience in order to be taken seriously. If my theory, or Barnett's, is correct and valuable, then putting in ten years or so of work in the field is really not too high a price to pay in order to get those ideas a forum. One has to be suspicious of someone who won't recognize this. And that's why you can safely dismiss my ideas, or Barnett's, because you have every reason to believe that we're far more likely to be full of shit than not. Barnett's worse, though, because he's acting cranky while I act more like an educated layperson with some good ideas. (Note: having not read Barnett's book and going only on the gloss of it above, I should make it clear that he only sounds, secondhand, like a crank. Calling himself "David Hume" doesn't help, though.)