URL: http://www.edge.org/conversation.php?cid=infinite-stupidity-edge-conversation-with-mark-pagel

Kind of interesting. Starting on page-7 that is, with the notion that in reality we can’t do better than "random" when it comes to finding new innovations.

I do think this author has been rather sloppy in this thinking and language – phrases like:
"But they were designed by natural selection." (natural selection does not ‘design’ anything)
and
"…humans finally arose." (we are neither ‘final’ nor pre-destined)

And in his central "worry," his own argument speaks against it because as we emerge into ever larger societies we are *increasingly* leveraging the small % of innovators, not the other way round.

But all that being said, the claim that what generates new idea-variation is the same as what generates genetic innovation and variation rings true; and seems to explain the observed world of innovation – that it is unpredictable and there is no demonstrated formula for it.

In six charts make it clear what the right answer is for the United States, or the world’s, current economic woes.

The purpose of the charts is to show the factual basis of the circumstances we find ourselves in; and therefore what dynamic has to change to get back on track. Objective, factual, analysis is the key to this. This is to get beyond ideology and anecdotes.

The time-line for the charts must run from 1811 – 2011. That is, 200 years of historical, factual, context to illuminate your chosen trend or dynamic variable.

For example, you may believe there is a deterministic relationship between tax rates and economic growth rates. So you would have a chart that shows what the total federal, state and city tax burden is for each year 1811 – 2011. Then a second chart that shows the annual growth in GNP (or maybe per-capita income) over that same time period. If there is a correlation it will be obvious.

Or maybe you want to reach for more subtle dynamics. Maybe you believe the driving force is the degree to which we adhere to true free-market capitalism principles. Perhaps you can figure out a fact-based model to represent that and chart it out over the past 200 years to show how that relates to economic well-being.

Hopefully you get the point.

Tools that may help:
* Wolfram Alpha (@ http://www.wolframalpha.com).
* CIA World Factbook (@ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/).
* The Economist magazine – especially their special reports (@ http://www.economist.com/).
* The World in 2011 (@ http://www.economist.com/theworldin/2011).

From usgovermentspending.com –

As an increasing number of sites require a facebook ID to register with them, log in, and/or leave comments; coupled with increasing concerns over facebook’s privacy attitude and invasiveness; there will be a building outcry for the government to put a damper on facebook’s building monopoly on identity management.

It will come down to Facebook Connect vs a more truly competitive Open-ID marketplace.

And it will consume us. Consume our money; sap our energy. Destroy any remaining belief in the myth of democracy.

I am left with a sense that, perhaps, Bin Laden has won after-all. Not because he was smart enough to plan it this way. But that the result of the 9/11 attack was an unintended consequence whereby a pernicious butterfly-effect was set in motion. The effect being a slow eating-away at the core of our democracy. The butterfly that triggered it being named “fear.”

Our leaders have failed us. Failed us because they are pandering and playing to our fears – feeding and encouraging and sustaining them. When “leadership” in this era actually calls for them to lead us directly into the fear – then through it. Lead us to embrace the risks with adult courage, *not* to eliminate the risks “at all costs.” To provide leadership that sustains our core values of independence, openness and freedom in the teeth of the threat.

A Frontline Documentary.
First Aired: 9/6/2011.

God is the name you give to your knowledge gap.

My issue with you having decided to believe in your religion isn’t that you believe it.

It is that in doing so you have so dramatically lowered your standard of truth and critical thinking in this area.

The arguments you try to make for your religious beliefs you yourself would not tolerate in the secular part of your life. Despite, you say, this being the most important part of your life.

To me, the unwillingness to apply the highest standard of inquiry and reasoning to your own religious beliefs betrays a lack of confidence in the whole affair.

“How can we monetize _____________?”

“How can ______________ be monetized?”

“Is there a way to monetize this idea?”

One of the functions capitalism performs is an exhaustive search for every conceivable way to monetize every conceivable idea.

For whatever reason, sitting here today this realization engenders in me a sense of being a minion to the inexorable forces of capitalism. Tho my rational mind says that winning at the game of monetization should be no less satisfying or personal growth enabling than, say, developing the physical and mental skills to win in sports …. or battle.

FUTURE EVENT: All Books Are Now Web Sites

FUTURE SCENARIO DESCRIPTION – -
The iPad and it’s ilk have had a profound effect on the very medium of the traditional book. Long gone are books as simply text on a reading device. Color, high def screens and interactivity have proven irresistable. Not only is every book now an eBook, but every book is now published as a fully interactive multi-media experience – in effect it’s very own book-site.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THIS EVENT COMING TRUE? Leave a comment with your opinion.

Reference:
Wolfram launches Computable Document Format (CDF) user-created interactive documents:  @ http://www.kurzweilai.net/wolfram-launches-computable-document-format-cdf-user-created-interactive-documents

I am thinking this phrase is a nice way to state, in ‘icon’ form, my concept of looking in at things through a crystal. Where the ‘truth’ is embedded deep in the center of a crystal. As a human, we can only look in at that ‘truth’ through one facet of the crystal at a time. That is, we can see and process and think and draw conclusions about that thing in the center of the crystal only one aspect of its being at a time.

So, I often like to say: “When I peer into this problem from the perspective of the ‘______’ facet (fill in the blank), I see it this way…..”

And this is really just a way for me to make operational my belief about absolute truth.

And on this point, also note that the thing in the center of the crystal is itself pulled out of context from all-that-is; and therefore when I say ‘truth’ in the 2nd paragraph above I am also mindful that it is truth with a ‘small-t.’

(Like Eskimos with snow, we need more words for the different concepts of truth.)