The Most Dangerous Idea in the World
A friend recently pointed me in the direction of edge.org, which the New York Times described as "One of the most interesting stopping places on the Web". The Edge Foundation was established in 1988 and its mandate is: "to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society." The foundation professes itself to have an informal membership including some of the "most interesting minds in the world".
They seem to have gotten quite a bit of press lately as we entered the new year. Each year they pose an "Edge Annual Question" to their illustrious membership and publish the responses of these great minds. This year's question is "What is your dangerous idea?" Quoting from their editor on this year's Annual Question:
"Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking that call into question many of our basic assumptions. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in evolutionary biology, physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of critical importance with respect to what it means to be human. For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature.
What you will find emerging out of the 119 original essays in the 75,000 word document written in response to the 2006 Edge Question — "What is your dangerous idea?" — are indications of a new natural philosophy, founded on the realization of the import of complexity, of evolution. Very complex systems — whether organisms, brains, the biosphere, or the universe itself — were not constructed by design; all have evolved. There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it. "
As you can see the 119 responses make up 75,000 words in total. I've only read some of the member's responses to the 2006 question, mostly the contributors who I know of or have read before. It certainly makes interesting reading, and has swallowed up a large chunk of my spare time over the past two weeks. I'll give a brief summary of a couple of the 'dangerous ideas' cited:
Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel argues that by observing someone's brain activity we can see that their (unconscious) brain activity betrays their actions before they are consciously aware of their urge or decision to perform that action. He goes on to pose the question: "Is one to be held responsible for decisions that are made without conscious awareness? "
Geneticist J. Craig Venter argues that advances in gene science and the unwinding of the 'nature versus nurture' debate by science will accentuate what we already know, that all humans are not created biologically equal. He writes, "It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc." Clearly, this knowledge could lead to great social conflict.
Other interesting contributions come from Martin Rees, Daniel C. Dennet, Leonard Susskind, Brian Greene, Martin Seligman and Steven Pinker (also on some recent science that is suggesting groups of people sperated by gender or race may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments).
I still haven't read half these contributions, if any of you find any other paticularily interesting ones let us know. In fact, this website could probably prompt about 119 very interesting distinct blog entries.
Published by Paul.
They seem to have gotten quite a bit of press lately as we entered the new year. Each year they pose an "Edge Annual Question" to their illustrious membership and publish the responses of these great minds. This year's question is "What is your dangerous idea?" Quoting from their editor on this year's Annual Question:
"Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking that call into question many of our basic assumptions. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in evolutionary biology, physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of critical importance with respect to what it means to be human. For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature.
What you will find emerging out of the 119 original essays in the 75,000 word document written in response to the 2006 Edge Question — "What is your dangerous idea?" — are indications of a new natural philosophy, founded on the realization of the import of complexity, of evolution. Very complex systems — whether organisms, brains, the biosphere, or the universe itself — were not constructed by design; all have evolved. There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it. "
As you can see the 119 responses make up 75,000 words in total. I've only read some of the member's responses to the 2006 question, mostly the contributors who I know of or have read before. It certainly makes interesting reading, and has swallowed up a large chunk of my spare time over the past two weeks. I'll give a brief summary of a couple of the 'dangerous ideas' cited:
Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel argues that by observing someone's brain activity we can see that their (unconscious) brain activity betrays their actions before they are consciously aware of their urge or decision to perform that action. He goes on to pose the question: "Is one to be held responsible for decisions that are made without conscious awareness? "
Geneticist J. Craig Venter argues that advances in gene science and the unwinding of the 'nature versus nurture' debate by science will accentuate what we already know, that all humans are not created biologically equal. He writes, "It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc." Clearly, this knowledge could lead to great social conflict.
Other interesting contributions come from Martin Rees, Daniel C. Dennet, Leonard Susskind, Brian Greene, Martin Seligman and Steven Pinker (also on some recent science that is suggesting groups of people sperated by gender or race may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments).
I still haven't read half these contributions, if any of you find any other paticularily interesting ones let us know. In fact, this website could probably prompt about 119 very interesting distinct blog entries.
Published by Paul.
|