“ "Religiosity started as a combination of human traits as especially agency detection, theory of mind and narrative constructions of meaning." ”—Jesse Bering cited in Michael Blume’s The God Instinct - by Jesse Bering book review, SciLogs, Dec 7, 2010
“ "The alphabet was civilization’s first abstract art form. As the actual shape of each letter became divorced from any connection to the image of the thing it might once have represented, the abstract quality of alphabets most likely subliminally reinforced the ability of those who used them to think abstractly." ”—Leonard Shlain, Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light, New York: Harper Perennial, 1991. 2007 (tnx carvalhais)
“If the artists’ work is truly the apparition of the zeitgeist, it can become evident only in retrospect, as society matures and its members achieve the same vantage point visionary artists occupied decades earlier. As Teilhard de Chardin put it:
In short, art represents the area of furthest advance around man’s growing energy, the area in which nascent truths condense, take on their first form, and become animate, before they are definitively formulated and assimilated.
This is the effective function and role of art in the general economy of evolution.
“Leonard Shlain on the integration of Art and Physics
“Revolutionary art and visionary physics are both investigations into the nature of reality. Roy Lichtenstein, the pop artist of the 1960s, declared, “Organized perception is what art is all about.” Sir Isaac Newton might have said as much for physics; he, too, was concerned with organizing perceptions. While their methods differ radically, artists and physicists share the desire to investigate the ways the interlocking pieces of reality fit together. This is the common ground upon which they meet. (…)
“ "To develop craft, strategy, language, logic, and arithmetic the mind must range back and forth along the line of past, present, and future. The ability to fashion a tool with the right hand issues out of the left brain and depends heavily on the ability to memorize a series of steps in sequence. The dominant hand is a specialized limb that is an extension of the sequential left hemisphere." ”—Leonard Shlain, Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light, New York: Harper Perennial, 1991. 2007 (tnx carvalhais)
“The evolution o life-forms on Earth seems to move in the direction of organisms that are increasingly cognizant of the subdimensions of space and time. A short excursion through the phyla will establish the hierarchy of this imperative. Plants, the planet’s earliest biological adventure, cannot perceive any dimensions because they do not have nervous systems. It must be a given that the appreciation of space and time requires some kind of apparatus with which to do so. Plants represent the “point” of Euclidean geometry. The first animal organisms, denied the use of the sun as a primary energy source, ate the plants as a substitute. But to consume the algae, the single-cell herbivores had to find them. A paramecium or amoeba, propelling itself toward nutritional stimulae and recoiling from noxious ones, lives out its life in a one-dimensional tunnel. Its sentience is so rudimentary that one can say it exists only in the first dimension of space: a “line”.
Not until the advent of flatworms does a nervous system appear that is elongated into a neural tube with a protuberance at the front end that branches into two lateral lobes. It is probably here that an organism begins to appreciate space from side to side, as well as to and fro. Because it has developed right and left symmetry, the elemental worm-brain is the likely candidate first to have apprehended the second spatial dimension, breadth. Existence for this organism is played out upon a geometrical “plane.” Planaria, the flatworm, is the original “Flatlander.”
When Devonian fish evolved with an eye and a cerebellum, they achieved the capacity for a full appreciation of the third spatial dimension, depth. From the vertebrates onward, all life-forms had the neurological equipment necessary to apprehend all three vectors of Euclidean space: length, breadth, and depth. Their world was contained within Euclid’s solid geometrical shape: a cube.
Still missing from our story of evolution is a sense of time. None of the aforementioned organisms experiences duration. They need no awareness of time because their internal clocks are set by genetics and instinct alone. Programmed into their behavior pattern are the earth’s daily revolution, the lunar periodicity, and the yearly equinoxes. Instead of a sense of time, they have what biologists call circadian rhythms. All organisms up to and including reptiles live in the thin slice of the present. to a fish, to a flatworm, to an amoeba, there is no past, and there is no future. Since it lacks the power of recollection, it is not possible for a crocodile to remember who or what it ate for lunch. All animals up the evolutionary chain through reptiles are prisoners locked in the solitary confinement of the flickering now.” ”—
"Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi’s prescription for discovery was seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought. (…)
In the end, accommodation of the thought style to novelty frequently follows the path described by William James: “First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally, it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.”
“Why were Ralph Steinman’s early studies ignored, neglected and often denigrated… The powerful force of longstanding dogma made it easy for the community to brush aside
Steinman’s experiments and ideas… Fortunately, Steinman’s passionate belief in his data and his unshakeable self-confidence propelled him forward despite the criticisms of his colleagues.” — Joseph L. Goldstein (Nobel Pr 1985), 2007 award to Steinman
“ "I’ve always known that the quality of love was the mind, even though the body sometimes refuses this knowledge. The body lives for itself. It lives only to feed and wait for the night. It’s essentially nocturnal.
But what of the mind which is born of the sun, William, and must spend thousands of hours of a lifetime awake and aware? Can you balance off the body, that pitiful, selfish thing of night against a whole lifetime of sun and intellect? I don’t know. I only know there has been your mind here and my mind here, and the afternoons have been like none I can remember.” ”—Ray Bradbury, Dandelion Wine
William Blake, Newton, (1795-1805), Collection Tate Britain
“The story of science as story suggests that science can and should serve three distinctive functions for humanity: providing stories that may increase (but never guarantee) human well-being, serving as a supportive nexus for human exploration and story telling in general, and exemplifying a commitment to skepticism and a resulting open-ended and continuing exploration of what might yet be. Some practical considerations that would further the development and acceptance of such a story of science as a widely shared nexus of human activity are described. (…)
Science generates stories from observations and, in this context, ‘true,’ if the term is to be used at all, means nothing more (and nothing less) than consistent with all observations so far. There is no conclusion in science; it is a continual and recursive process of story testing.
Science is importantly a continual and recursive process of not only story testing but also story revision. (…) An observation that is not consistent with the story falsifies the hypothesis or, in our terms, shows the summary/story to be no longer adequate and creates a requirement for a new summary/story, one that accounts the new observations as well as the previous ones.
Such falsification is actually the most productive case in terms of science itself (as opposed, perhaps, to practical uses to which scientific stories might be put). Without falsifying observations, stories would become static, and science would end. What is important is making the unexpected observations. Science evolves more by being wrong than by being right. It is for this reason that a scientific hypothesis/summary/story remains necessarily testable; it should not only appropriately summarize observations to date but motivate new observations that may result in its replacement by a better story. (…)
It is the wrong stories that actually advance the process of exploration and evolving understanding that is the objective of scientific method. Being wrong is to be celebrated for its generativity, rather than denigrated or discouraged as error, in classrooms and elsewhere. (…) Recognizing the importance of story revision in scientific method helps to further clarify both the limitations and the effectiveness of science more generally. (…)
There is always more than one possible summary/story that will fit any given set of observations (Grobstein, 2003a). And so there is always a choice (conscious or unconscious) to further pursue one or another way of several alternative ways of making sense of the world. It is through this crack that science is perhaps most strongly affected by the individual temperament and cultural background of its practitioners. (…) Regardless, what is being tested in scientific method is necessarily not only the nature of things being investigated but also the stories chosen to further investigate them. (…)
Science is therefore fundamentally not about security but about doubt, not about knowing but about asking, not about certainty but about skepticism. Scientific stories are written not to be believed but to be understood, made use of as appropriate, and revised. (…)
It is instead nothing more (or less) than the dynamic combination of curiosity and skepticism that fuels virtually all productive inquiry, and is inherent in all humans from the time they are born. Babies arrive in the world as scientists in the universal sense of the previous section. They make observations, test those observations, and learn from unexpected results. They create and revise stories. In short, the underpinnings of science are a set of skills and inclinations that everyone comes equipped with and needs only to be encouraged to continue becoming better at using. (…)
“ "He had more books than I’ve ever seen in all my life - two libraries, two rooms loaded from floor to ceiling around all four walls and such books as the apocryphal something-or-other in ten volumes. He played Verdi Operas and pantomimed them in his pajamas with a great rip down the back. He didn’t give a damn about anything. He is a great scholar who goes reeling down the New York waterfront with original seventeenth-century musical manuscripts under his arm, shouting. He crawls like a big spider through the streets. His excitement blew out of his eyes in stabs of fiendish light. He rolled his neck in spastic ecstasy. He lisped, he writhed, he flopped, he moaned, he howled, he fell back in despair. He could hardly get a word out, he was so excited with life." ”—Jack Keroauc, On The Road, Viking Press, 1957, Chapter 4
“Love. Fall in love and stay in love. Write only what you love, and love what you write. The word is love. You have to get up in the morning and write something you love, something to live for. (…)
If you want to write, if you want to create, you must be the most sublime fool that God ever turned out and sent rambling. You must write every single day of your life. You must read dreadful dumb books and glorious books, and let them wrestle in beautiful fights inside your head, vulgar one moment, brilliant the next. You must lurk in libraries and climb the stacks like ladders to sniff books like perfumes and wear books like hats upon your crazy heads. I wish you a wrestling match with your Creative Muse that will last a lifetime. I wish craziness and foolishness and madness upon you. May you live with hysteria, and out of it make fine stories — science fiction or otherwise. Which finally means, may you be in love every day for the next 20,000 days. And out of that love, remake a world.” ”—Ray Bradbury
“ "Out in the world not much happened. But here in the special night, a land bricked with paper and leather anything might happen, always did." ”—Ray Bradbury, Something Wicked This Way Comes/Sound of Thunder
“Eric Schwitzgebel on task and the limits of human philosophical cognition
“Most of our philosophical ambitions are far beyond ordinary human cognitive capacity. Our philosophical opinions are thus much more likely to be driven by sociological and psychological factors that have little to do with the real merit of the arguments for and against. This partly explains why we make so little philosophical progress over the centuries.
“ "We are so used to the notion of our own inevitability as life’s dominant species that it is hard to grasp that we are here only because of timely extraterrestrial bangs and other random flukes. The one thing we have in common with all other living things is that for nearly four billions years our ancestors have managed to slip through a series of closing doors every time we needed them to." ”—Bill Bryson
“ “The world around us pelts our nerve endings with light rays and molecules, triggering sensations. Growing up in a garrulous society, we learn to associate patterns of these sensations with words and patterns of these words with further words until we reach the point somehow of talking about objects in the world around us.
We come to talk of animals, plants, planets, galaxies and also of the nerve endings themselves, the light rays and molecules. We talk of immaterial things too: numbers, classes and properties. I have sought a clearer view of the connections, logical and casual, between stimulation, language, and the natural world that language purports to describe. I have sought a clearer notion of why natural science turns out under experiment to be so largely true, and how much of it is imposed by man and how much by nature.” ”—Willard Van Orman Quine, professor of philosophy and logician in the analytic tradition (tnx kevinlepore)
“ "Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction. " ”—Ray Bradbury, American fantasy, horror, science fiction writer
“ "You’ll find out it’s little savors and little things that count more than big ones. A walk on a spring morning is better than an eighty-mile ride in a hopped-up car, you know why? Because it’s full of flavors, full of a lot of things growing. You’ve time to seek and find. I know, you’re after the broad effect now, I suppose that’s fit and proper.
But you got to look at grapes as well as watermelons. You greatly admire skeletons and I like fingerprints; well, and good. Right now such things are bothersome to you, and I wonder if it isn’t because you never learned to use them. If you had your way you’d pass a law to abolish all the little jobs, the little things. But then you’d leave yourselves nothing to do between the big jobs and you’d have a devil of a time thinking up things? Cutting grass and pulling weeds can be a way of life.” ”—Ray Bradbury, Dandelion Wine
“ "Only if the third necessary thing could be given us. Number one, as I said: quality of information. Number two: leisure to digest it. And number three: the right to carry out actions based on what we learn from the interaction of the first two." ”—Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Ballantine Books, 1953
“ "They walked still farther and the girl said, "Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?"
No. Houses have always been fireproof, take my word for it.”
Strange. I heard once that a long time ago houses used to burn by accident and they needed firemen to stop the flames.” ”—Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, Ballantine Books, 1953
“ "The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man’s mind.” ”—James Clerk Maxwell (1850), cited in Edwin Thompson Jaynes, Probability Theory: the Logic of Science, 1994
“ "Common language (or at least, the English language) has an almost universal tendency to disguise epistemological statements by putting them into a grammatical form which suggests to the unwary an ontological statement. A major source of error in current probability theory arises from an unthinking failure to perceive this.
To interpret the first kind of statement in the ontological sense is to assert that one’s own private thoughts and sensations are realities existing externally in Nature. We call this the “Mind Projection Fallacy”, and note the trouble it causes many times in what follows. But this trouble is hardly confined to probability theory; as soon as it is pointed out, it becomes evident that much of the discourse of philosophers and Gestalt psychologists, and the attempts of physicists to explain quantum theory.” ”—Edwin Thompson Jaynes, Probability Theory: the Logic of Science, 1994
“ "Science is the only news. When you scan through a newspaper or magazine, all the human interest stuff is the same old he-said-she-said, the politics and economics the same sorry cyclic dramas, the fashions a pathetic illusion of newness, and even the technology is predictable if you know the science. Human nature doesn’t change much; science does, and the change accrues, altering the world irreversibly.” ”—Stewart Brand, American writer, best known as editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, Whole Earth Discipline: an Ecopragmatist Manifesto, Viking Adult, 2009
“ "Science is the modern art of creating stories that explain observations of the natural world, and that could be useful for controlling or predicting nature." ”—B. R. Bickmore, D. A. Grandy, Science as Storytelling, Brigham Young University, 2005
B. R. Bickmore, D. A. Grandy on Science as Storytelling
"The difference between science and other endeavors that seek explanations of why things are the way they are can be found in the sorts of standards that science sets itself for what will count as an explanation, a good explanation, and a better explanation" — Alexander Rosenberg, Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, 2000, p. 21.
“Clearly, science is not solely about discovering “facts” about the natural world, although scientists do spend a lot of time making observations and experiments. Rather, the real essence of science is storytelling - creatively making up stories to explain what we observe in the natural world. (…)
Scientists clearly place a much higher value on stories that make precise, testable predictions about the natural world, and mesh well with the other stories scientists tell. This value system, more than anything else, is what makes modern science so powerful. If scientists place more value on stories that predict new things, then the best scientific stories are the ones that are put at the most risk of failure. And when they do fail, scientists eventually try to find and fix the problems, leading to even more powerful stories. Similarly, the warning flags that go up when a scientific story does not mesh well with others can lead to more progress as scientists try to resolve the apparent contradictions. By constantly subjecting their stories to this kind of scrutiny, scientists try to make their stories realistic, even if we can never tell whether we have hit upon a completely true description of reality.” ”—B. R. Bickmore, D. A. Grandy, Science as Storytelling, Brigham Young University, 2005
“Richard Feynman and Jirayr Zorthian on science, art and beauty
Richard P. Feynman: “I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is …
I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.”
“ "Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman we don’t start measuring her limbs. " ”—Pablo Picasso, Spanish painter, draughtsman, and sculptor (1881-1973)
The next giant leap in human evolution may not come from new fields like genetic engineering or artificial intelligence, but rather from appreciating our ancient brains.
“It is this unheralded mechanism that will usher in the next stage of human, giving future people exquisite powers we do not currently possess, powers worthy of natural selection itself. And, importantly, it doesn’t require us to transform into cyborgs or bio-engineered lab rats. It merely relies on our natural bodies and brains functioning as they have for millions of years.
This mystery mechanism of human transformation is neuronal recycling, coined by neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, wherein the brain’s innate capabilities are harnessed for altogether novel functions.
This view of the future of humankind is grounded in an appreciation of the biologically innate powers bestowed upon us by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. This deep respect for our powers is sometimes lacking in the sciences, where many are taught to believe that our brains and bodies are taped-together, far-from-optimal kluges. (…)
These and other inborn capabilities we take for granted are not kluges, they’re not “good enough,” and they’re more than merely smart. They’re astronomically brilliant in comparison to anything humans are likely to invent for millennia. (…)
Like all animal brains, human brains are not general-purpose universal learning machines, but, instead, are intricately structured suites of instincts optimized for the environments in which they evolved. To harness our brains, we want to let the brain’s brilliant mechanisms run as intended—i.e., not to be twisted. Rather, the strategy is to twist Y into a shape that the brain does know how to process. (…)
There is a very good reason to be optimistic that the next stage of human will come via the form of adaptive harnessing, rather than direct technological enhancement: It has already happened.
We have already been transformed via harnessing beyond what we once were. We’re already Human 2.0, not the Human 1.0, or Homo sapiens, that natural selection made us. We Human 2.0’s have, among many powers, three that are central to who we take ourselves to be today: writing, speech, and music (the latter perhaps being the pinnacle of the arts). Yet these three capabilities, despite having all the hallmarks of design, were not a result of natural selection, nor were they the result of genetic engineering or cybernetic enhancement to our brains. Instead, and as I argue in both The Vision Revolution and my forthcoming Harnessed, these are powers we acquired by virtue of harnessing, or neuronal recycling. (…)
After all, the change from Human 1.0 to 2.0 is nothing short of universe-rattling: It transformed a clever ape into a world-ruling technological philosopher.
Although the step from Human 1.0 to 2.0 was via cultural selection, not via explicit human designers, does the transformation to Human 3.0 need to be entirely due to a process like cultural evolution, or might we have any hope of purposely guiding our transformation? (…)
The point is, most science fiction gets all this wrong. While the future may be radically “futuristic,” with our descendants having breathtaking powers we cannot fathom, it probably won’t be because they evolved into something new, or were genetically modified, or had AI-chip enhancements. Those powerful beings will simply be humans, like you and I. But they’ll have been nature-harnessed in ways we cannot anticipate, the magic latent within each of us used for new, brilliant Human 3.0 capabilities.” ”—Mark Changizi (cognitive scientist, author), Humans, Version 3.0., SEED.com, Feb 23, 2011 See also: Prof. Stanislas Dehaene, "How do humans acquire novel cultural skills? The neuronal recycling model", LSE Institute | Nicod, (Picture source: Rzeczpospolita)
— What would you think it’s worth telling future generations about the life you’ve lived and the lessons you’ve learned from it?
“I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.
The moral thing I should wish to say… I should say love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way and if we are to live together and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.” ”—BBC’s Face to Face interview of Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature (1872-1970), in 1959. See also: ☞ The Three Passions of Bertrand Russell: Love, Truth, and Justice
“ "The future is uncertain… this uncertainty is at the very heart of human creativity." ”—Ilya Prigogine, physical chemist and Nobel Laureate noted for his work on dissipative structures, complex systems, and irreversibility (1917-2003)
“ "Our ideas are not ideas about reality – they are a part of reality. We are not separate from reality looking at it, we are part of it. We are part of this universe and our ideas are part of this universe. In effect they are not truly our ideas, they are the universe’s ideas and we just happen to be the thinking organ of the universe." ”—Jeff Carreira, Are We On the Outside of the Universe Looking In?, Feb 17, 2011 (tnx johnsparker)
Freeman Dyson on James Gleick’s "The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood"
Érik Desmazières: La Salle des planètes, from his series of illustrations for Jorge Luis Borges’s story ‘The Library of Babel’.
“The explosive growth of information in our human society is a part of the slower growth of ordered structures in the evolution of life as a whole. Life has for billions of years been evolving with organisms and ecosystems embodying increasing amounts of information. The evolution of life is a part of the evolution of the universe, which also evolves with increasing amounts of information embodied in ordered structures, galaxies and stars and planetary systems. In the living and in the nonliving world, we see a growth of order, starting from the featureless and uniform gas of the early universe and producing the magnificent diversity of weird objects that we see in the sky and in the rain forest. Everywhere around us, wherever we look, we see evidence of increasing order and increasing information. (…)
A darker view of the information-dominated universe was described in a famous story, “The Library of Babel,” by Jorge Luis Borges in 1941. Borges imagined his library, with an infinite array of books and shelves and mirrors, as a metaphor for the universe.
James Gleick’s book has an epilogue entitled “The Return of Meaning,” expressing the concerns of people who feel alienated from the prevailing scientific culture. The enormous success of information theory came from Claude Shannon’s decision to separate information from meaning. His central dogma, “Meaning is irrelevant,” declared that information could be handled with greater freedom if it was treated as a mathematical abstraction independent of meaning. The consequence of this freedom is the flood of information in which we are drowning. The immense size of modern databases gives us a feeling of meaninglessness. Information in such quantities reminds us of Borges’s library extending infinitely in all directions. It is our task as humans to bring meaning back into this wasteland. As finite creatures who think and feel, we can create islands of meaning in the sea of information. Gleick ends his book with Borges’s image of the human condition:
We walk the corridors, searching the shelves and rearranging them, looking for lines of meaning amid leagues of cacophony and incoherence, reading the history of the past and of the future, collecting our thoughts and collecting the thoughts of others, and every so often glimpsing mirrors, in which we may recognize creatures of the information.”
“Kevin Kelly: “Is technology a part of us? Or are we a part of a larger “technology”?
“Technology’s dominance ultimately stems not from its birth in human minds but from its origin in the same self-organization that brought galaxies, planets, life, and minds into existence. It is part of a great asymmetrical arc that begins at the big bang and extends into ever more abstract and immaterial forms over time. The arc is the slow yet irreversible liberation from the ancient imperative of matter and energy.” ”—Kevin Kelly, writer, the founding executive editor of Wired magazine, and a former editor/publisher of the Whole Earth Catalog, What Technology Wants, New York: Viking, The Penguin Group, 2010
“Determinism in the fundamental sense has ceased to be a viable concept with the discovery of the Heisenberguncertainty principle. Determinism in the sense of predictability has ceased to be a viable concept since our understanding of deterministic chaos started happening.
Dualism (aka ‘genuine’ free will, magic-man-done-it, or ghost in my head) has ceased to be a viable concept since the last proponents died after publishing the last influential publication on dualism (indeed Popper/Eccles called it interactionism).
What remains is to understand how the brain chooses between different options. How the brain generates different choices when faced with the same situation. How the brain constantly explores and probes the environment to see how it will react to its actions. Brains are constantly active and external stimuli are merely nudging this activity in our brains a little. For the most part, all brains, and not just our’s, are active, and only occasionally re-active. This is the only scientifically tenable definition of free will today and anybody not understanding this needs to read up on about 30 years worth of neuroscience. There is plenty of evidence that brains constitute more components than just one nonlinear system like the weather, but nonlinearity is definitely one of the defining characteristics of all brains.” ”—Björn Brembs, neuroscientist (tnx sandygautam)
“ “If technology is an extension of humans, it is not an extension of our genes but of our minds. Technology is therefore the extended body for ideas.” ”—Kevin Kelly, What Technology Wants, Penguin Group, New York, 2010