Without mathematics

It goes without saying that without language, humans wouldn't have much to say. We'd have to bark or grunt--and point.

The same goes for mathematics: without mathematics, we couldn't say too much quantitatively about the world.

This idea is exemplified by the quote in this review of a new book on the history of finance:

Without mathematics, there would be no finance; and without finance, there would be no sophisticated, advanced economies.

Something to keep in mind. The foundation of a good education--and a successful career in many fields or pursuits--often includes a facility with language and mathematics. Both language and mathematics can be considered a key component of critical thinking.

PS: Note how the author uses the term "noughties" for the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Wikinomics: an open collaborative sharing meta-summary

I came across the book Wikinomics a while back. It reports on yet another revolution that is exploding all around us. Call it the open collaborative sharing peering acting globally revolution. A survey of what is available about this book on the internet leads me to believe it is one that could easily be summarized in a few powerpoint slides. True, many books could be compressed in that way. But given that my personal library has hit somewhere on the order of 3500 books, and according to my wife those 3500 books and I will be living on the streets if I purchase too many more, I have to be selective. So I did the next best thing. I read a summary of the book.

Whenever I read a summary that is freely available on the internet, I wonder where summary starts and copyright ends. I'll let the authors of Wikinomics be the judge. But given their excitement about open collaborative sharing peering acting globally, I'm sure they don't mind.

Also, please note that henceforth when I use the term they I mean the authors of the summary and/or the authors of Wikinomics. Since I only read the summary, there's the possiblity that they--the summary authors--made it all up (a real danger of sharing on the internet). I'm not sure what the actual book says. Like I told you: I'm afraid to buy it. But when I say they I mean those people who produced the summary and/or the book. Anyway, it's all collaborative, so let's not be too concerned with authorship. Right?

So what did I learn from that Wiki-summary? That we're living in a world of openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally.

First, an aside: Don't you suppose they could have come up with a single term to replace acting globally? I think one word would sound better. Maybe they should have collaborated with an online community, finding a solution in the ideagoras (more on that later). Since they didn't, I'll use the term globalling. It's my contribution to their project. I realize it's not an existing word, but if they can coin ideagoras, I see no reason I can't collaboratively bring globalling to the table.

So let's repeat. What did I learn from the summary? We've living in a world of openness, peering, sharing, and globalling.

What does this mean? Briefly:

• openness: Fewer secrets. Less IP hogging. Manage some IP tightly, but share the rest. More publicly or communally owner ideas.
• peering: No, this does not mean looking into your neighbors window. It means working with people on a more egalitarian basis. Sharing ideas. Code. Whatever. Maybe charging one another as well. Less hierarchy (read: less boss telling you what to do--take that you mean old boss).
• sharing: Sort of goes along with the openness and peering mentioned above. "Here, this worked for me, maybe you can try it too." That sort of sharing.
• globalling: Remember, that's my word. You can use it though. I'm sharing it. What does it mean? It means there's a big world out there. Lots of players. I'm not sure whether it's flat or not. I suppose globalling can take place on flat or curved globes.

And one other thing. Consumers can also be prosumers. Yup, as a consumer, you help those from whom you consume make money, and that means you make some money too. Maybe you produce a cool video with some tools the big-guys provide, install it on a web-site hosted by those big-guys, and now they're raking in those big-guy advertising dollars. Guess what? The big-guys throw a few cents your way. Or perhaps you've got an old junky bike. Snap a photo, put it up on Ebay: Ta-da, you're both making money.

As a consumer/prosumer, they tell us we may be developing something cool, sharing that cool thing, or just socializing--cause you know what? We're all cool.

Finally, that ideagoras I mentioned above: Some people in the world have questions. Others have answers. Suppose you match up the questions with the answers? You got it: ideagoras. The marketplace of ideas.

That's pretty much it. So what do I think? Well, I'm not overly enthused or convinced when they call YouTube and MySpace collaborative environments. Collaborative maybe in the sense that YouTube and MySpace host an environment in which users can post material. But I wouldn't call them collaborative in the sense that the users on either are producing new innovative ideas. They're mainly advertising, socializing, and entertaining. Don't get me wrong: I've learned a great deal about certain topics, e.g. music, by drawing on the material available on YouTube. I can even show my kids a segment from Gilligan's Island. Not that I'd often want to, but it's there if the need arises.

My opinion: There is obviously some merit in the ideas behind openness, peering, sharing, and globalling. But I'm not sure there's enough to warrant an entire book. Nor the time to read a whole book. And most importantly--to take the risk of coming home with that book, only to find myself later that evening wandering the streets with 3500 books in tow. It's just not worth the risk.

Fortunately, in this open, peering, sharing, and globalling world we live in, I found an alternative. On the internet. That summary I referred to.

In that sense, I suppose they're onto something. But once you've grappled with the definitions for openness, peering, sharing, and globalling--plus prosumer and ideagoras--I think you're 99.9% of the way there.

But now that I know I'm a prosumer, I have to figure out a way to start monetizing my contributions to the this open, peering, sharing, globalling world.

What is an Economy of Mind?

One of my primary interests is philosophy. Implication?: I'm interested in pretty much everything. Well, not everything--but a lot. Philosophy can be considered both the ground of other fields--e.g. mathematics, physics, economics--as well as the overarching sky--the umbrella that provides cover--or even the framework that holds everything together.

My interest in philosophy ignited in my teens. Though even as an adolescent my interest in science fiction--and even horror or the fantastic--often had philosophical overtones. Probing the limits and edges of what is.

I remember in my teens, riding my bike home from the library. I stopped by a friend's house. I'd picked up a few books. Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, if my memory serves me. His general response: "???"

In college, I remember a guy saying "Why do I care what Plato thought about something?" My response: "The way you think is heavily influence by what Plato thought. Might be good to examine the mental plumbing."

Philosophy is fundamental. And even if not studied outright, for its own sake, familiarity with philosophical concepts is important. Particular if one is interested in truth: what was true yesterday, what is true today, and what might be true tomorrow. And along with that, what we mean by truth. Hopefully we're all interested in truth.

But as pointed out above, philosophy is not only fundamental. It's primacy makes it overarching. One cannot even discuss or learn a particular science, e.g. physics, without a metalanguage, e.g. English, and before you know it philosophical problems are popping up and scattering about like particles in an "atom smasher." Philosophy, like a broom, helps to sweep up the mess (though often under the rug--still lurking for those bold enough to pull it up).

So as I'm considering this issue of truth--and everything else--I happen upon the following distinction: mind, and not-mind. Traditionally, science was considered the field that studies not-mind. (Many of the sciences are considered to have peeled off of philosophy--hence the term natural philosopher for the original scientists, e.g. Newton.)

Truth itself is a product of mind. And one could say that every individual mind--yours or mine--confronts--on a daily basis--the products of mind and not-mind. And our job or role as minds--if we so choose--is to evaluate these products.

What makes this particularly difficult: even not-mind is covered or smothered in the products of mind. Is a quark real? Do protons exist? These are products of mind--other minds, the minds of physicists. Are they real? Certainly there are phenomenon we can measure to influence our opinion one way or the other. But in the end, they are products of mind.

So in the end, one cannot observe the world other than through mind--one's own that is. You can try to convince me otherwise, but your arguments will have to be processed by--you guessed it--my mind.

Some philosophers, e.g. Berkeley, argued that everything is mind. Maybe the mind of some superior being. Highly speculative if you ask me. Might make a good science fiction book, but I'm not sure of the value.

But he was still onto something. As was Kant in his categories: we observe the world through mind. We have no choice. Our minds are busy--day in, day out--consuming the products of minds--our own, or others.

Hence, it's not a leap to say that we live in an economy of mind. And one goal--in accepting this characterization of our world--is to evaluate these products. To evaluate the products of mind.

The internet is an evolutionary--perhaps revolutionary--step in the direction of a true economy of mind. Or minds--plural. Though some might argue that the singular is appropriate. We might be building a global mind. Possibly.

This thinking lead me to call my blog the Economy of Mind: A node in a global brain. A means to produce products of my own mind, as well as to evaluate the products of other minds.

And hopefully--most importantly--to discover a few truths. If not exact truths, then approximate truths. Approximate may be the best we can do. That's good enough for me.

Update: 071214.1: While looking into the issue of technique, I thought of William Barrett's book on the topic. I never finished the book. Will have to get back to it. Nothing against the book. But while looking into a few issues, I came across this comment in a review of it: For better or worse, he writes, philosophers have made the modern world: "If there had not been those early Greek thinkers who created philosophy, there would be no atomic bombs." This is what I had in mind when I told the skeptic he should consider his Platonic mental plumbing.

Security is a given

When I previously stated that a political system should be derived from the distinct--and often conflicting--concepts of freedom and justice, one important question remained untouched: What about security?

These days, particularly since 9/11, the word security seems almost obligatory in our political discourse. The Republicans learned this lesson long ago; the Democrats are playing catchup. Hence the Energy Independence and Security Act. Passage of this bill is a "shot heard 'round the world" we're told. (Apparently security is always--what should I say?--more secure--when a few shots are fired. In the streets of the Middle East, shots are literally fired into the air. Here, we settle for the proverbial and metaphorical variety. Less collateral damage--except to the English language.)

Don't get me wrong. Security is important. But I'm not going to start the "Freedom & Security" party? A libertarian might excitedly respond: "Yeah, that's what libertarianism is all about: securing property."

Or how about "Vote Freedom, Justice, & Security." You have to admit: it has that post-9/11 ring to it, don't you think? Though also a bit clunky.

Here's the problem I have with either modification to Freedom & Justice: (1) Humans are communitarian as well as individualistic. A political system should take that into account; (2) Security is a given.

Point #1 implies a sense of justice. Point #2 argues that any system will require steps to ensure it's continued existence.

Adding the security label to concepts in our political discourse is redundant. Security is a given.

Know what I mean?

I’m convinced that many of our problems or disagreements result from miscommunication. Not all of them. Nor even most of them. But enough to warrant caution.

Often the miscommunication results from inadequate information or ambiguity. Other times, because the individuals on each side of the communication channel bring a significantly different ideological and conceptual encoder and decoder with which they transmit and receive ideas.

As I develop my ideas (or lack thereof) in this blog, it will be important to ensure that we are communicating reliably. (Whoever that "we" may be.)

If you think about it, even our individual dilemmas in life can described as a form of faulty communication. The world sends or presents to us signals, or messages—some might call them facts. And we interpret them. Unfortunately, our decoders are often cluttered with ideological and conceptual baggage. I suppose a philosopher might say we have ontological and epistemological problems. Worse, even in our own heads, miscommunication is often the norm. People can easily delude themselves. It makes life simpler. More peaceful. The old saying "ignorance is bliss" might be rephrased "miscommunication is bliss."

Reliable communication is important. Particularly for an accountant trying to finalize the taxes of a burned out psychedelic rock star.

PS: Yes, this post was an excuse to try out embedding a video link.

PPS: I've yet to figure out how to embed video into the middle of the text.

Frame the Ticking Time Bomb

Brief observation. What with all the to-do about the CIA destroying interrogation tapes, the ticking time bomb scenario comes to mind. You know the one: If you knew there was a nuclear bomb planted somewhere in NYC, and you knew the person who could prevent its detonation, would you support the torture of that person? Many say "of course, of course, of course."

This makes me think of the following: what is the proper frame for an issue--and the questions surrounding it. It is often possible to frame a question in a way that makes a detestable answer seem--well--downright upright.

Note the framing of the ticking time bomb question. The bomb is there. Certainty: Close to 100%. We know the person who has the information. Certainty: Close to 100%. We just need get the information with torture. Probability of succeeding with this extraction: Close to 100%.

At least, that's the way the question seems framed to me. Hypothetical? Yes, but nothing wrong with that. Probable?--not in the least. But the response to this improbably hypothetical questions opens the door to torture. Now it's not a question of if to torture, just a question of when. Under what circumstances.

I believe the question should be framed in a more realistic way, a way that brings to bear all the important issues: probability, ticking time bombs, guilt, and most importantly--innocence.

So here's the realistically framed question: Someone might have planted a nuclear weapon in NYC. Analysis produces a list of 1,000 people, at least one of whom is likely to have information that can prevent its detonation, if it exists. Some of them may be children. Maybe your wife. Perhaps even you. Would you support the torture of these 1,000 people in order to disarm a bomb that may not exist?

Remember: The bomb may not exist. You may not get the information you need to disarm it. But you will definitely be torturing innocent people--100% guaranteed.

New Game: Neo-Opposites

Have you heard about the new game? It's called neo-opposites. The neo-cons invented it. Here's how it works:

• Step 1: Rattle sabres above head of dysfunctional country. Best if said country has loads of oil reserves.
• Step 2: Game and prime and bludgeon the intelligence community until they say "said country (with oil reserves) most certainly has weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
• Step 3: Announce to the world: "Intelligence has demonstrated WMD. A threat exists."
• Step 4: Invade country with purported WMD (and said oil).
• Step 5: Exhibit beyond the pale incompetence after Step 4 invasion.
• Step 6: "Oops, no WMD. Bad Intelligence!!! That's ok, we did find some oil."
• Step 7: Look for something to distract everyone's attention.

So far, pretty straight forward, don't you think?

Ok, here's where it gets complicated. Here's where the opposites come into play. Pay attention. We go back to Step 1, but there's a complication. It goes like this:

• Step 1: Rattle sabres above head of another dysfunctional country. Best if said country has loads of oil reserves.
• Step 2: Shamed and infuriated intelligence community says "said country (with oil reserves) most certainly DOES NOT have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
• Step 3: Announce to the world: "Intelligence says no WMD. They were wrong last time. They must be wrong again. Hence: A threat exists."

That's the opposites part, in Step 3. And I think you can see where the game is headed.

So the game is called neo-opposites. We're in Step 3 right now. But the world doesn't seem to be buying it. That's got the neo-cons all stopped up.

The latter condition is referred to as neo-constipation. That's not supposed to be part of the game.

Stay tuned.