"WHAT
IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?" |
|
The
natural gift of consciousness should be treasured all the more
for its transience. |
|
The
answers...exert an un- questionable morbid fascination — those
are the very ideas that scientists cannot confess in their
technical papers. |
|
"Fate
largo alle «beautiful minds» di Roberto
Casati;;
"La
terza cultura di John Brockman" di Armando Massarenti |
|
God
(or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a
Leap: Fourteen scientists ponder everything from string theory
to true love. |
|
Space
Without Time, Time Without Rest: John Brockman's Question
for the Republic of Wisdom—It
can be more thrilling to start the New Year with a good question
than with a good intention. That's what John Brockman is
doing for the eight time in a row. |
|
What
do you believe to be true, even though you can't prove
it? John Brockman asked over a hundred scientists
and intellectuals... more» ... Edge |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/slashdot139.jpg) |
That's
what online magazine The Edge - the World Question Center
asked over 120 scientists, futurists, and other interesting
minds. Their answers are sometimes short and to the point |
|
Science's
Scourge of Believers Declares His Faith in Darwin... |
|
Singolare
inchiesta in usa di un sito internet. Ha chiesto ai signori
della ricerca di svelare i loro "atti di fede".
Sono arrivate le risposte piu' imprevedibili i fantasmi dello
scienziato: non ho prove ma ci credo. |
|
To
celebrate the new year, online magazine Edge asked
some leading thinkers a simple question: What do you
believe but cannot prove? Here is a selection of their
responses... |
|
Scientists
dream too - imagine that |
|
"Fantastically
stimulating ...Once
you start, you can't stop thinking about that question. It's
like the crack cocaine of the thinking world." — BBC
Radio 4 |
|
Scientists,
increasingly, have become our public intellectuals, to whom
we look for explanations and solutions. These may be partial
and imperfect, but they are more satisfactory than the alternatives. |
|
Bangladesh—The
cynic and the optimist, the agnostic and the believer,
the rationalist and the obscurantist, the scientist and
the speculative philosopher, the realist and the idealist-all
converge on a critical point in their thought process where
reasoning loses its power. |
|
Il
Sole 24 Ore-Domenica Segnalate le vostre cuioosita,
chiederemo riposta alle persone piu autorevoli |
|
"So
now, into the breach comes John Brockman, the literary agent
and gadfly, whose online scientific salon, Edge.org, has become
one of the most interesting stopping places on the Web. He begins
every year by posing a question to his distinguished roster of
authors and invited guests. Last year he asked what sort of counsel
each would offer George W. Bush as the nation's top science adviser.
This time the question is "What's your law?" |
|
"John
Brockman, a New York literary agent, writer and impresario of
the online salon Edge, figures it is time for more scientists
to get in on the whole naming thing...As a New Year's exercise,
he asked scores of leading thinkers in the natural and social
sciences for "some bit of wisdom, some rule of nature, some
law-like pattern, either grand or small, that you've noticed
in the universe that might as well be named after you." |
|
"John
Brockman has posted an intriguing question on his Edge website.
Brockman advises his would-be legislators to stick to the scientific
disciplines." |
|
"Everything
answers to the rule of law. Nature. Science. Society. All of
it obeys a set of codes...It's the thinker's challenge to put
words to these unwritten rules. Do so, and he or she may go down
in history. Like a Newton or, more recently, a Gordon Moore,
who in 1965 coined the most cited theory of the technological
age, an observation on how computers grow exponentially cheaper
and more powerful... Recently, John Brockman went looking for
more laws." |
|
|
"In
2002, he [Brockman] asked respondents to imagine that they had
been nominated as White House science adviser and that President
Bush had sought their answer to 'What are the pressing scientific
issues for the nation and the world, and what is your advice
on how I can begin to deal with them?'Here are excerpts of some
of the responses. " |
|
"Edge's
combination of political engagement and
blue-sky thinking makes stimulating reading
for anyone seeking a glimpse into the next
decade." |
|
"Dear
W: Scientists Offer
President Advice on Policy" |
|
"There
are 84 responses,
ranging in topic
from advanced nanotechnology
to the psychology
of foreign cultures,
and lots of ideas
regarding science,
technology, politics,
and education." |
|
"Brockman's
thinkers of the 'Third Culture,' whether
they, like Dawkins, study evolutionary
biology at Oxford or, like Alan Alda, portray
scientists on Broadway, know no taboos.
Everything is permitted, and nothing is
excluded from this intellectual game." |
|
"The
responses are generally written in an
engaging, casual style (perhaps encouraged
by the medium of e-mail), and are often
fascinating and thought - provoking....
These are all wonderful, intelligent
questions..." |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/law139.jpg) |
"We
are interested in thinking smart,'" declares Brockman
on the site, "we are not interested in the anesthesiology
of wisdom.'" |
|
"INSPIRED
ARENA: Edge has been bringing together the world's foremost
scientific thinkers since 1998, and the response to September
11 was measured and uplifting." |
|
"Responses
to this year's question are deliciously creative... the variety
astonishes. Edge continues to launch intellectual skyrockets
of stunning brilliance. Nobody in the world is doing what Edge is
doing." |
|
"Once
a year, John Brockman of New York, a writer and literary
agent who represents many scientists, poses a question in
his online journal, The Edge, and invites the thousand or
so people on his mailing list to answer it." |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/folio139.jpg) |
"Don't
assume for a second that Ted Koppel, Charlie Rose and the
editorial high command at the New York Times have
a handle on all the pressing issues of the day.... a lengthy
list of profound, esoteric and outright entertaining responses. |
|
"A terrific, thought provoking site." |
|
"The
Power of Big Ideas" |
|
"The
Nominees for Best Invention Of the Last Two Millennia Are .
. ." |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/gates139.jpg) |
"...Thoughtful and often
surprising answers ....a fascinating survey of intellectual
and creative wonders of the world ..... Reading them reminds
me of how wondrous our world is." Bill Gates, New York Times Syndicated
Column |
|
"I
can answer the question, but am I bright enough to ask it?"
James Lee Byars, founder, The World Question Center![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/interrogate150.jpg)
"Fantastically
stimulating...It's like the crack cocaine of the thinking world....
Once you start, you can't stop thinking about that question." —
BBC Radio 4
|
The Edge Annual
Question — 2006
WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?
The
history of science is replete with discoveries
that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally
dangerous in their time; the Copernican and
Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious.
What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think
about (not necessarily one you originated)
that is dangerous not because it is assumed
to be false, but because it might be true? |
[Thanks
to Steven Pinker for suggesting the Edge Annual
Question — 2006.] |
January
1, 2006
To
the Edge Community,
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.
Welcome
to Edge. Welcome to "dangerous ideas". Happy
New Year.
John
Brockman
Publisher
& Editor |
The Edge Annual
Question — 2006
WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/nav100.2.news.gif)
|
Kyung
Hang, Rocky
Mountain News, Telopolis, El
Correo Gallego, The
Sunday Telegraph (Syndey), The
Hindu, La
Vanguardia, Financial
Times, Radio3
Scienza, Washington
Times, Taipei
Times, Berliner
Morgenpost, The
New York Times, The
News & Observer, The
Sunday Express, New
Scientist, Australian, La
Stampa, Sueddeutsche
Zeitung, Vintrenta
Auvi, The
Hankyoreh, Slashdot, Arts & Letters
Daily, The
Guardian, The
Times, The
Telegraph, Boing
Boing, Yahoo
News, Huffington
Post |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/rocky200.gif)
Opinion
— Columnists
Seebach:
My dangerous idea: Each child deserves an IQ
test
January
21, 2006
Most
of the contributors appear to have interpreted "dangerous" as
meaning something like "subversive," challenging
to one or another received orthodoxy.
... In that spirit, here is my dangerous
idea: Every child in school deserves
an individual IQ test. ... And the corollary:
Every statistical analysis of school-
and district-level data should include
individual IQ as one of the variables
measured. ... Why
is that subversive? Because so many people,
especially in education, are terrified
to admit that individual IQ has anything
to do with academic achievement, because
it is not evenly distributed demographically. |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/tp.gif)
Meine
gefährlichste Idee
Ralf
Grötker 04.01.2006
172
Wissenschaftler antworteten auf die
Edge-Frage 2006
Seit nunmehr neun Jahren startet die
Stiftung Edge mit einer Umfrage zu einem
großen generellen Thema ins neue
Jahr. 172 Wissenschaftler haben diesmal
geantwortet. Sie geben preis, was sie
für ihre gefährlichste Idee
halten, die wahr werden könnte.
[Click
here for Google translation] |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/correogellego200.gif)
Santiago
— Domingo 29.01.2006
CRÓNICAS
BÁRBARAS
Ciencia racista, atractiva pero muy
peligrosa
Manuel Molares do Val
La
afirmación políticamente
más incorrecta, a cuyo autor pueden
acusarlo de racista si no de nazi, es
que hay grupos humanos cuyas características
genéticas los hacen más
inteligentes que otros.
Lo
malo es que esto lo afirman algunos científicos
al contestar a la pregunta que hace cada
año The Edge (www.edge.org), órgano
de un club de sabios de todo el planeta
que se plantean problemas aparentemente
simples que son comple- jísimos.
La cuestión de 2006, que responderán
hasta 2007 miles de investigadores, la
presentó Steven Pinker, psicolingüista,
profesor de psicología en Harvard.
Recuerda Pinker que la historia de la ciencia
está repleta de descubrimientos
que fueron considerados social, moral y
emocionalmente peligrosos; los más
obvios, la revolución copernicana
y la darwiniana.
[Click
here for Google translation] |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/telegraph.au200)
Syndey — News In Review
Into
the minds of the believers
January 15, 2006
With
the aim of gathering ideas from the world's
leading thinkers on intellectual, philosophical,
artistic and literary issues, US writer
John Brockman established The Edge Foundation
in 1988. Since 1997, Edge has been running
on the Internet (www.edge.org), and every
year poses a question in its The World
Question Centre. |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/hindu200.gif)
Opinion
Gene
discoveries highlight dangers facing
society
By
Alok Jha
January 3,
2006
Royal
Society president Martin Rees said the
most dangerous idea was public concern
that science and technology were running
out of control. "Almost any scientific
discovery has a potential for evil as
well as for good; its applications can
be channelled either way, depending on
our personal and political choices; we
can't accept the benefits without also
confronting the risks. The decisions
that we make, individually and collectively,
will determine whether the outcomes of
21st century sciences are benign or devastating."
Professor
Rees argues that the feeling of fatalism
will get in the way of properly regulating
how science progresses. "The future
will best be safeguarded — and science
has the best chance of being applied optimally — through
the efforts of people who are less fatalistic." |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/lv200.jpg)
09
January 2006
“Los
genios son de ciencias y de letras” [PDF]
Lluis
Amiguet
AUDACIOUS
KNOWLEDGE
What is a dangerous idea?
One not assumed to be false, but possibly true?What
do you believe is true even though you cannot
prove it?" These are the questions of the
last two years that Edge Foundation asked of 120
free thinkers. The audacious and stimulating answers
have been reproduced by in hundreds of newspapers
such as The New York Times or Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung. Among the hundreds of
ideas are the demonstration of life in other planets,
or that life has been a unique chance of existing;
concerns over the fact that there are genetic
differences relating to intelligence between ethnic
groups and between the sexes; the inference that
global warming is not so worrisome, the notion
that there are alternatives to the free market. |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/ftcom.gif)
Arts & Weekend
Seductive
power of a hazardous idea
By David Honigmann
Published: January 11 2006
The
results (collected at www.edge.org) give
an insight into how philosophically minded
scientists are thinking: the result is
somewhere between a multi-disciplinary
seminar and elevated high table talk.
The responses to Brockman's question
do not directly engage with each other,
but they do worry away at a core set
of themes. Many agree that neuroscience
at the micro level and evolutionary psychology
at the macro level have abolished free
will. Richard Dawkins is typical: "Assigning
blame and responsibility is an aspect
of the useful fiction of intentional
agents that we construct in our brains
as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis
of what is going on in the world." Holding
people responsible for their behaviour
is, in his view, completely irrational. |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/radio3scienza200.jpg)
The
Third Ring: Radio3 Science
The
Internet Society
11/01/2006
Theories
of social nets and their relationship
with the contemporary sociology, dangerous
ideas of scientists on Radio3 Scienza
on Radio3.
[click here: Ascolto] |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/washtimes200.jpg)
Editorials/OpEd
Dangerous
questions for dangerous times
By Suzanne Fields
January 9, 2006
Forget for a moment the substance of the arguments
in defense of Darwin, Intelligent Design and
the Bible. These arguments will take care of
themselves in real time, by the clock and according
to the calendar. No one proves or disproves
any of the theories about the origin of our
planet.
But how we choose to conduct these debates,
the knowledge we bring to the argument, is
crucially important. Intellectual revolutions
have a way of changing how we think. The way
we frame the argument, the idols, gods or the
God we celebrate, ultimately informs politics
and dictates policy.
You could visit a provocative cyber salon known
as The Edge (www.edge.org) to test yourself
against the edgiest thinking on these subjects.
John Brockman, who likes being described as
a "cultural impresario," poses a
question every year that would tempt an answer
from Dr. Faustus. This year he asks contributors
for "dangerous ideas." "The
history of science is replete with discoveries
that were considered socially, morally, or
emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican
and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious," he
writes. "What is your dangerous idea?
An idea you think about (not necessarily one
you originated) that is dangerous not because
it is assumed to be false, but because it might
be true?"
|
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/taipei200.jpg)
Editorials
What
is the worst thing that could go wrong
with our society?
By
Alok Jha
Jan 04, 2006
Academics see gene cloning perils, untamed
global warming and personality-changing drugs
as presenting the gravest dangers for the future
of civilization
...Richard
Dawkins, of Oxford University, said our
increased understanding of how our brains
work would lead to difficult questions
in defining morality.
"As
scientists, we believe that human brains,
though they may not work in the same way
as man-made computers, are as surely governed
by the laws of physics," Dawkins said.
"When
a computer malfunctions, we do not punish
it. We track down the problem and fix it,
usually by replacing a damaged component,
either in hardware or software. Isn't the
murderer or the rapist just a machine with
a defective component? Or a defective upbringing?
Defective education? Defective genes?" he
said. ... |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/berlinermorningpost200.jpg)
08
January 2006
Risky ideas; What do scientists currently
regard as the most dangerous thoughts? A New Yorker
literature agent collected answers
By Ulli Kulke;
Marina kitchens
Der
New Yorker Literatur-Agent John Brockman
schafft es immer wieder zum Jahreswechsel,
auf seiner Website einen "Think
Tank" aus namhaften Wissenschaftlern
und KŸnstlern zu versammeln. Viele
Dutzend Persšnlichkeiten der unterschiedlichsten
Fachrichtungen antworten ihm jeweils
auf eine bestimmte Frage. Diesmal bat
Brockman seine Adressaten um "gefŠhrliche
Ideen", die schon bald vielleicht Šhnliche
Verwerfungen bewirken kšnnten
wie die Darwinsche Evolutionstheorie
oder die Kopernikanische Revolution.
Wir stellen kurze Auszuge, die Kernthesen,
aus einigen Antworten vor. |
Sunday,
January 8, 2006
READING FILE
Be
Afraid
Edge.org canvassed
scientists for their "most dangerous
idea." David Buss, a psychologist
at the University of Texas, chose "The
Evolution of Evil."
The dangerous idea is that all of us contain
within our large brains adaptations whose
functions are to commit despicable atrocities
against our fellow humans — atrocities
most would label evil.
The
unfortunate fact is that killing has proved
to be an effective solution to an array
of adaptive problems in the ruthless evolutionary
games of survival and reproductive competition:
Preventing injury, rape, or death; protecting
one's children; eliminating a crucial antagonist;
acquiring a rival's resources; securing
sexual access to a competitor's mate; preventing
an interloper from appropriating one's
own mate; and protecting vital resources
needed for reproduction. ...
The
danger comes from people who refuse to
recognize that there are dark sides of
human nature that cannot be wished away
by attributing them to the modern ills
of culture, poverty, pathology, or exposure
to media violence. |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/images/newsobserver200.jpg)
Arts & Entertainment
January 8, 2006
The
most dangerous idea
J. Peder Zane, Staff Writer
Each
Christmas, the Manhattan literary agent
John Brockman gives his pals a "riddle
me this."
A year ago he brain-teased: "What
do you believe is true even though you
cannot prove it?" And this time: "What
is your dangerous idea?"
Brockman's
challenge is noteworthy because his buddies
include many of the world's greatest scientists:
Freeman Dyson, David Gelertner, J. Craig
Venter, Jared Diamond, Brian Greene. Yet
their ideas, delineated in brief and engaging
essays, are not just for tech-heads. The
119 responses Brockman received to the
most recent question -- posted at www.edge.org
-- are dangerous precisely because they
so often stray from the land of test tubes
and chalkboards into the realms of morality,
religion and philosophy. ... |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/images/sundayexpress200.jpg)
January
8, 2006
Dangerous
Ideas About Modern Life
By
Dan Fielder
Free
will does not exist. We are not always
created equal. Science will never be
able to address our deepest concerns.
These are just three of some of the most
controversial theories advanced by some
of the world's leading thinkers in answer
to the question: "What is your dangerous
idea?"
The
survey, conducted by the New York-based
Website The Edge, produced 116 responses
that were all the more striking for being
put forward by experts in relevant fields.
Nobel
Laureate Eric Kandel argues, for instance,
that by observing someone's brain activity
we know what they're going to do even before
they do, which begs the question "Is
one to be held responsible for decisions
that are made without conscious awareness?" Free
will, he says, is therefore an illusion.
Geneticist
J. Craig Venter argues that "there
are strong genetic components associated
with most aspects of human existence",
from intelligence to willpower, and that
a growing awareness of these essential
inequalities will lead to more social conflict.
So
next time you fall off your cabbage soup
diet or alcohol-free January plan, don't
beat yourself up, just tell yourself you
lack the willpower gene. ... |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/images/ns.jpg)
Soundbites
07 January 2006
"The
danger rests with what we already know:
that we are not all created equal."
Genome sequencing pioneer Craig
Venter suggests
greater understanding of how genes influence
characteristics such as personality, intelligence
and athletic capability could lead to conflict
in society (Edge.org magazine, 1 January) |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/australian200.jpg)
Miriam
Cosic
January 06, 2006
The
wilder shores of creativity
He
asked his roster of thinkers - V.S. Ramachandran,
Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond,
Daniel Goleman, Matt Ridley, Simon Baron-Cohen,
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Martin Seligman,
among the most famous - to nominate an
idea, not necessarily their own, they consider
dangerous not because it is false, but
because it might be true.
Two
ideas with enormous ramifications for the
arts resonated though the tens of thousands
of words of text. ... |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/lastampa200.jpg)
January
5, 2006
FROM
CLONING TO PREDETERMINATION OF SEX: THE ANSWERS
OF INVESITGATORS AND PHILOSOPHERS TO A QUESTION
ON THE ONLINE SALON EDGE
Scientists
discuss dangerous ideas
By Giovanna Zucconi
Per quanto
spaventevole e surreale possa apparire
l'idea di ventiquattrore senza connessione
alcuna, se non con i propri pensieri
o con la mancanza dei suddetti, considerare
la solitudine addirittura una minaccia
per l'umanità così come
la conosciamo sembrerebbe una provocazione.
E infatti lo è. Sul filo del paradosso,
così ha risposto il neurobiologo
californiano Leo Chalupa alla domanda
posta dalla rivista Edge: qual è,
secondo lei, l'idea più pericolosa
oggi in circolazione? Pericolosa non
perché è falsa, ma perché potrebbe
rivelarsi vera? Chalupa argomenta appunto
che l'iper-informazione che ci bombarda è una
forma di totalitarismo, serve a intasare
l'attività neuronale, cioè a
impedirci di pensare. E che un'intera
giornata di solitudine sarebbe perciò eversiva:
molti, pensando e ripensando, metterebbero
in discussione la società in cui
viviamo. ... |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/sz200.jpg)
Munich, January 5
Feuilleton
By Andrian Kreye
Dangerous
ideas
Who controls humans? God? The genes? Or
nevertheless the computer? The on-line forum
Edge asked its yearly question — and
the answers raised more questions.
Once a year self-styled head of the Third
Culture movement and New York literary
agent John Brockman asks his fellow thinkers
and clients a question, who publishes their
answers every New Year's Day in his online
forum edge.org. Thus Mr. Brockman fulfills
the promise that is the basic principle
of Third Culture.
The
sciences are asking mankind's relevant
questions he says, while the humanities
busy themselves with ideological skirmishes
and semantic hairsplitting. It is about
having last words, which have never been
as embattled as in the current context
of post-ideological debates and de-secularization.
That's why this year's question 'What is
your dangerous idea' seemed unusually loaded.
Since it's inception in 1998 the forum
had mainly dealt with the basic questions
of science culture per se. But maybe that's
why this year the debate has brought out
the main concerns of Third Culture more
direct than in the years before. |
Barcelona, January 5
VINTRENTA
AVUI
By Santi Mayor Farguell
La
pregunta de l’any
Laweb Edge.org penjarà l’1
de gener la pregunta de l’any. La
del 2005 va ser resposta per 120ments de
l’anomenada ‘tercera cultura’,
que van reflexionar sobre l’enunciat “Què creus
que és veritat tot i no
poder-ho demostrar?”. Amb l’any
nou, coneixeremla nova pregunta i, sobretot,
les noves respostes.
|
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/slashdot200.jpg)
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/slashdot.line.jpg)
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on
Tuesday January 03, @11:27PM
from the shhh-it's-too-dangerous-to-talk-about-here
dept.
GabrielF writes "Every
year The Edge asks over
100 top scientists and
thinkers a question, and
the responses are fascinating
and widely quoted. This
year, psychologist Steven
Pinker suggested they
ask "What
is your most dangerous
idea?" The 117
respondents include Richard
Dawkins, Freeman Dyson,
Daniel Dennett, Jared
Diamond -- and that's
just the D's! As you might
expect, the submissions
are brilliant and very
controversial." [...click
here]
|
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/guardian.200.jpg)
Gene
discoveries highlight dangers facing
society
Alok
Jha, science correspondent
Monday January 2, 2006
Mankind's
increasing understanding of the way genes
influence behaviour and the issue's potential
to cause ethical and moral dilemmas is
one of the biggest dangers facing society,
according to leading scientists. The concerns
were voiced as part of an exercise by the
web magazine Edge, which asked more than
100 scientists and philosophers: "What
is your dangerous idea?". The responses
were published online yesterday.
Craig
Venter, founder of the J Craig Venter Science
Foundation, said the genetic basis of personality
and behaviour would cause conflicts in
society. He said it was inevitable that
strong genetic components would be discovered
at the root of many more human characteristics
such as personality type, language capability,
intelligence, quality of memory and athletic
ability. "The danger rests with what
we already know: that we are not all created
equal," he said.
|
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/times.uk200.jpg)
SCIENCE
NOEBOOK
Why
it can be a very smart move to start life with
a Jewish momma
By
Anjana Ahuja
January 02, 2006
• THERE
IS ONE dangerous idea that still trumps
them all: the notion that, as Steven Pinker
describes it, “groups of people may
differ genetically in their average talents
and temperaments”. For “groups
of people”, read “races”. |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/telegraph.jpg)
Ban all schools? That's a dangerous thought
By
Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Januaryr 1, 2006
The
Earth can cope with global warming, schools
should be banned and we should learn
to love bacteria. These are among the
dangerous ideas revealed by a poll of
leading thinkers.
ohn
Brockman, the New York-based literary agent
and publisher of The Edge website posed
the question: what is your dangerous idea?
in reference to a controversial book by
the philosopher Daniel Dennett that argued
that Darwinism was a universal acid that
ate through virtually all traditional beliefs.
Brockman
received 116 responses to his challenge
from Nobel laureates, futurists and creative
thinkers. ...
|
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/ald200.gif)
Articles
of Note
Science
can be a risky game, as Galileo learned
to his cost. Now John Brockman asks
over a hundred thinkers, “What
is your most dangerous idea?”... more» |
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/bb200.jpg)
Sunday,
January 1, 2006
EDGE.org
annual question: What is your dangerous
idea?
Each year, John Brockman at Edge.org
asks some of the brightest minds in
science and technology to consider
one question. This year: What is your
dangerous idea?
Here
is U.C. Davis neurobiologist Leo
M. Chalupa's dangerous idea:
#
A 24-hour period of absolute solitude
Our brains are constantly subjected to
the demands of multi-tasking and a seemingly
endless cacophony of information from
diverse sources. Cell phones, emails,
computers, and cable television are omnipresent,
not to mention such archaic venues as
books, newspapers and magazines.
|
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/yahoo.news200.jpg)
John
Brockman: The Edge Annual Question
Sun Jan 1, 2:28
PM
What
you will find emerging out of the 117
essays 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. |
HOWARD
GARDNER
Psychologist, Harvard University; Author, Changing
Minds
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/gardner100.jpg)
Following
Sisyphus, not Pandora
According to myth, Pandora unleashed all
evils upon the world; only hope remained
inside the box. Hope for human survival
and progress rests on two assumptions:
(1) Human constructive tendencies can counter
human destructive tendencies, and (2) Human
beings can act on the basis of long-term
considerations, rather than merely short-term
needs and desires. My personal optimism,
and my years of research on "good
work",
could not be sustained without these assumptions.
Yet I lay awake at night with the dangerous
thought that pessimists may be right. For
the first time in history — as far
as we know! — we humans live in a
world that we could completely destroy.
The human destructive tendencies described
in the past by Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund
Freud, the "realist" picture
of human beings embraced more recently
by many sociobiologists, evolutionary psychologists,
and game theorists might be correct; these
tendencies could overwhelm any proclivities
toward altruism, protection of the environment,
control of weapons of destruction, progress
in human relations, or seeking to become
good ancestors. As one vivid data point:
there are few signs that the unprecedented
power possessed by the United States is
being harnessed to positive ends.
Strictly speaking, what will happen to
the species or the planet is not a question
for scientific study or prediction. It
is a question of probabilities, based on
historical and cultural considerations,
as well as our most accurate description
of human nature(s). Yet, science (as reflected,
for example, in contributions to Edge discussions)
has recently invaded this territory with
its assertions of a biologically-based
human moral sense. Those who assert a human
moral sense are wagering that, in the end,
human beings will do the right thing. Of
course, human beings have the capacities
to make moral judgments — that is
a mere truism. But my dangerous thought
is that this moral sense is up for grabs — that
it can be mobilized for destructive ends
(one society's terrorist is another society's
freedom fighter) or overwhelmed by other
senses and other motivations, such as the
quest for power, instant gratification,
or annihilation of one's enemies.
I will continue to do what I can to encourage
good work — in that sense, Pandoran
hope remains. But I will not look upon
science, technology, or religion to preserve
life. Instead, I will follow Albert Camus'
injunction, in his portrayal of another
mythic figure endlessly attempting to push
a rock up a hill: one should imagine Sisyphus
happy. |
MARTIN
E.P. SELIGMAN
Psychologist, University of Pennsylvania, Author, Authentic
Happiness
Relativism
In
looking back over the scientific and artistic
breakthroughs in the 20th century, there
is a view that the great minds relativized
the absolute. Did this go too far? Has
relativism gotten to a point that it is
dangerous to the scientific enterprise
and to human well being?
The most visible person to say this is none
other than Pope Benedict XVI in his denunciations
of the "dictatorship of the relative." But
worries about relativism are not only a matter
of dispute in theology; there are parallel
dissenters from the relative in science,
in philosophy, in ethics, in mathematics,
in anthropology, in sociology, in the humanities,
in childrearing, and in evolutionary biology.
Here are some of the domains in which serious
thinkers have worried about the overdoing
of relativism:
• In
philosophy of science, there is ongoing
tension between the Kuhnians (science
is about "paradigms," the fashions
of the current discipline) and the realists
(science is about finding the truth).
• In epistemology there is the
dispute between the Tarskian correspondence
theorists ("p" is true if p)
versus two relativistic camps, the coherence
theorists ("p" is true to the
extent it coheres with what you already
believe is true) and the pragmatic theory
of truth ("p" is true if it gets
you where you want to go).
• At the ethics/science interface,
there is the fact/value dispute: that science
must and should incorporate the values
of the culture in which it arises versus
the contention that science is and should
be value free.
• In mathematics, Gödel's
incompleteness proof was widely interpreted
as showing that mathematics is relative;
but Gödel, a Platonist, intended the
proof to support the view that there are
statements that could not be proved within
the system that are true nevertheless.
Einstein, similarly, believed that the
theory of relativity was misconstrued in
just the same way by the "man is the
measure of all things" relativists.
• In the sociology of high accomplishment,
Charles Murray (Human Accomplishment)
documents that the highest accomplishments
occur in cultures that believe in absolute
truth, beauty, and goodness. The accomplishments,
he contends, of cultures that do not believe
in absolute beauty tend to be ugly, that
do not belief in absolute goodness tend
to be immoral, and that do not believe
in absolute truth tend to be false.
• In anthropology, pre-Boasians
believed that cultures were hierarchically
ordered into savage, barbarian, and civilized,
whereas much of modern anthropology holds
that all social forms are equal. This is
the intellectual basis of the sweeping
cultural relativism that dominates the
humanities in academia.
• In evolution, Robert Wright
(like Aristotle) argues for a scala
naturae,
with the direction of evolution favoring
complexity by its invisible hand; whereas
Stephen Jay Gould argued that the fern
is just as highly evolved as Homo sapiens.
Does evolution have an absolute direction
and are humans further along that trajectory
than ferns?
• In child-rearing, much of twentieth
century education was profoundly influenced
by the "Summerhillians" who argued
complete freedom produced the best children,
whereas other schools of parenting, education,
and therapy argue for disciplined, authoritative
guidance.
• Even in literature, arguments
over what should go into the canon revolve
around the absolute-relative controversy.
• Ethical relativism and its opponents
are all too obvious instances of this issue
I
do not know if the dilemmas in these domains
are only metaphorically parallel to one
another. I do not know if illumination
in one domain will not illuminate the others.
But it might and it is just possible that
the great minds of the twenty-first century
will absolutize the relative.
|
DAN
SPERBER
Social
and cognitive scientist, CNRS,
Paris; author, Explaining
Culture
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/sperber100.jpg)
Culture
is natural
A number of us — biologists,
cognitive scientists, anthropologists
or philosophers — have
been trying to lay down
the foundations for a truly
naturalistic approach to
culture. Sociobiologists
and cultural ecologists
have explored the idea
that cultural behaviors
are biological adaptations
to be explained in terms
of natural selection. Memeticists
inspired by Richard Dawkins
argue that cultural evolution
is an autonomous Darwinian
selection process merely
enabled but not governed
by biological evolution.
Evolutionary
psychologists, Cavalli-Sforza,
Feldman, Boyd and Richerson,
and I are among those
who, in different ways,
argue for more complex
interactions between biology
and culture. These naturalistic
approaches have been received
not just with intellectual
objections, but also with moral and political outrage:
this is a dangerous idea,
to be strenuously resisted,
for it threatens humanistic
values and sound social sciences.
When I am called a "reductionist",
I take it as a misplaced
compliment: a genuine reduction
is a great scientific achievement,
but, too bad, the naturalistic
study of culture I advocate
does not to reduce to that
of biology or of psychology.
When I am called a "positivist" (an
insult among postmodernists),
I acknowledge without any
sense of guilt or inadequacy
that indeed I don't
believe that all facts
are socially constructed.
On the whole, having one's
ideas described as "dangerous" is
flattering.
Dangerous
ideas are potentially
important. Braving insults
and misrepresentations
in defending these ideas
is noble. Many advocates
of naturalistic approaches
to culture see themselves
as a group of free-thinking,
deep-probing scholars besieged
by bigots.
But
wait a minute! Naturalistic
approaches can be dangerous:
after all, they have been.
The use of biological evidence
and arguments purported to
show that there are profound
natural inequalities among
human "races",
ethnic groups, or between
women and men is only too
well represented in the history
of our disciplines. It is
not good enough for us to
point out (rightly) that
1) the science involved is
bad science,
2) even if some
natural inequality were established,
it would not come near justifying
any inequality in rights,
and 3) postmodernists criticizing
naturalism on political grounds
should begin by rejecting
Heidegger and other reactionaries
in their pantheon who also
have been accomplices of
policies of discrimination.
This is not enough because
the racist and sexist uses
of naturalism are not exactly
unfortunate accidents.
Species
evolve because of genetic
differences among their members;
therefore you cannot leave
biological difference out
of a biological approach.
Luckily, it so happens that
biological differences among
humans are minor and don't
produce sub-species or "races," and
that human sexual dimorphism
is relatively limited. In
particular, all humans have
mind/brains made up of the
same mechanisms, with just
fine-tuning differences.
(Think how very different
all this would be if — however
improbably — Neanderthals
had survived and developed
culturally like we did so
that there really were different
human "races").
Given
what anthropologists have
long called "the
psychic unity of the human
kind", the fundamental
goal for a naturalistic approach
is to explain how a common
human nature — and
not biological differences
among humans — gives
rise to such a diversity
of languages, cultures, social
organizations. Given the
real and present danger of
distortion and exploitation,
it must be part of our agenda
to take responsibility for
the way this approach is
understood by a wider public.
This,
happily, has been done
by a number of outstanding
authors capable of explaining
serious science to lay
audiences, and who typically
have made the effort of
warning their readers against
misuses of biology. So
the danger is being averted,
and let's just move on?
No, we are not there yet,
because the very necessity
of popularizing the naturalistic
approach and the very talent
with which this is being
done creates a new danger,
that of arrogance.
We
naturalists do have radical
objections to what Leda Cosmides
and John Tooby have called
the "Standard Social
Science Model." We have
many insightful hypotheses
and even some relevant data.
The truth of the matter however
is that naturalistic approaches
to culture have so far remained
speculative, hardly beginning
to throw light on just fragments
of the extraordinarily wide
range of detailed evidence
accumulated by historians,
anthropologists, sociologists
and others. Many of those
who find our ideas dangerous
fear what they see as an
imperialistic bid to take
over their domain.
The
bid would be unrealistic,
and so is the fear. The
real risk is different.
The social sciences host
a variety of approaches,
which, with a few high
profile exceptions, all
contribute to our understanding
of the domain. Even if it
involves some reshuffling, a naturalistic approach should
be seen as a particularly
welcome and important addition.
But naturalists full of grand
claims and promises but with
little interest in the competence
accumulated by others are,
if not exactly dangerous,
at least much less useful
than they should be, and
the deeper challenge they
present to social scientists' mental
habits is less likely to
be properly met. |
PIET
HUT
Professor
of Astrophysics, Institute for
Advanced Study, Princeton
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/hut100.jpg)
A
radical reevaluation
of the character of time
Copernicus
and Darwin took away our
traditional place in the
world and our traditional
identity in the world.
What traditional trait
will be taken away from
us next? My guess is that
it will be the world itself.
We
see the first few steps in
that direction in the physics,
mathematics and computer
science of the twentieth
century, from quantum mechanics
to the results obtained by
Gödel, Turing and others.
The ontologies of our worlds,
concrete as well as abstract,
have already started to melt
away.
The
problem is that quantum entanglement
and logical incompleteness
lack the in-your-face quality
of a spinning earth and our
kinship with apes. We will
have to wait for the ontology
of the traditional world
to unravel further, before
the avant-garde insights
will turn into a real revolution.
Copernicus
upset the moral order, by
dissolving the strict distinction
between heaven and earth.
Darwin did the same, by dissolving
the strict distinction between
humans and other animals.
Could the next step be the
dissolution of the strict
distinction between reality
and fiction?
For
this to be shocking, it has
to come in a scientifically
respectable way, as a very
precise and inescapable conclusion — it
should have the technical
strength of a body of knowledge
like quantum mechanics, as
opposed to collections of
opinions on the level of
cultural relativism.
Perhaps
a radical reevaluation of
the character of time will
do it. In everyday experience,
time flows, and we flow with
it. In classical physics,
time is frozen as part of
a frozen spacetime picture.
And there is, as yet, no
agreed-upon interpretation
of time in quantum mechanics.
What
if a future scientific understanding
of time would show all previous
pictures to be wrong, and
demonstrate that past and
future and even the present
do not exist? That stories
woven around our individual
personal history and future
are all just wrong? Now that
would be a dangerous idea. |
JOHN GOTTMAN
Psychologist;
Founder of Gottman Institute;
Author, The
Mathematics of Marriage.
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/gottman100.jpg)
Emotional
intelligence
The
most dangerous idea I know
of is emotional intelligence. Within
the context of the cognitive
neuroscience revolution in
psychology, the focus on
emotions is extraordinary.
The over-arching idea that
there is such a thing as
emotional intelligence, that
it has a neuroscience, that
it is inter-personal, i.e.,
between two brains, rather
than within one brain, are
all quite revolutionary concepts
about human psychology. I
could go on. It is also a
revolution in thinking about
infancy, couples, family,
adult development, aging,
etc. |
RICHARD
FOREMAN
Founder
& Director, Ontological-Hysteric
Theater
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/foreman100.jpg)
Radicalized
relativity
In
my area of the arts and
humanities, the most dangerous
idea (and the one under
who's influence I have
operated throughout my
artistic life) is the complete
relativity of all positions
and styles of procedure.
The notion that there
are no "absolutes" in
art — and in the
modern era, each valuable
effort has been, in one
way or another, the highlighting
and glorification of elements
previous "off limits" and
rejected by the previous "classical" style.
Such
a continual "reversal
of values" has of course
delivered us into the current
post-post modern era, in
which fragmentation, surface
value and the complex weave
of "sampling procedure" dominate,
and "the center does
not hold".
I
realize that my own artistic
efforts have, in a small
way, contributed to the current
aesthetic/emotional environment
in which the potential spiritual
depth and complexity of evolved
human consciousness is trumped
by the bedazzling shuffle
of the shards of inherited
elements — never before
as available to the collective
consciousness. The resultant
orientation towards "cultural
relativity" in the arts
certainly comes in part from
the psychic re-orientation
resulting from Einstein's
bombshell dropped at the
beginning of the last century.
This
current "relativity" of
all artistic, philosophical,
and psychological values
leaves the culture adrift,
and yet there is no "going
back" in spite of what
conservative thinkers often
recommend.
At
the very moment of our cultural
origin, we were warned against "eating
from the tree of knowledge".
Down through subsequent history,
one thing has led to another,
until now — here we
are, sinking into the quicksand
of the ever-accelerating
reversal of each latest value
(or artistic style). And
yet —
there are many artists, like
myself, committed to the
believe that — having
been
"thrown by history" into
the dangerous trajectory
initiated by the inaugural
"eating from the tree
of knowledge" (a perhaps "fatal
curiosity" programmed
into our genes) the only
escape possible is to treat
the quicksand of the present
as a metaphorical "black
hole" through which
we must pass — indeed
risking psychic destruction
(or "banalization") — for
the promise of emerging re-made,
in new still unimaginable
form, on the other side.
This
is the "heroic wager" the
serious "experimental" artist
makes in living through the
dangerous idea of radicalized
relativity. It is ironic,
of course, that many of our
greatest scientists (not
all of course) have little
patience for the adventurous
art of our times (post Stockhausen/Boulez
music, post Joyce/ Mallarme
literature) and seem to believe
that a return to a safer "audience
friendly" classical
style is the only responsible
method for today's artists.
Do
they perhaps feel psychologically
threatened by advanced styles
that supercede previous principals
of coherence? They are right
to feel threatened by such
dangerous advances into territory
for which conscious sensibility
if not yet fully prepared.
Yet it is time for all serious
minds to "bite the bullet" of
such forays into the unknown
world in which the dangerous
quest for deeper knowledge
leads scientist and artist
alike. |
PHILIP ZIMBARDO
Professor
Emeritus of Psychology
at Stanford University;
Author: Shyness
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/zimbardo100.jpg)
The
banality of evil is matched
by the banality of heroism
Those people
who become perpetrators
of evil deeds and those
who become perpetrators
of heroic deeds are basically
alike in being just ordinary,
average people.
The
banality of evil is matched
by the banality of heroism.
Both are not the consequence
of dispositional tendencies,
not special inner attributes
of pathology or goodness
residing within the human
psyche or the human genome.
Both emerge
in particular situations
at particular times when
situational forces play
a compelling role in moving
individuals across the
decisional line from inaction
to action.
There
is a decisive decisional
moment when the individual
is caught up
in a vector of forces emanating
from the behavioral context.
Those forces combine to
increase the probability
of acting to harm others
or acting to help others.
That decision may not be
consciously planned or
taken mindfully, but impulsively
driven by strong situational
forces external to the
person. Among those action
vectors are group pressures
and group identity, diffusion
of responsibility, temporal
focus on the immediate
moment without entertaining
costs and benefits in the
future, among others.
The
military police guards who
abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib
and the prison guards in
my Stanford Prison experiment
who abused their prisoners
illustrate the "Lord
of the Flies" temporary
transition of ordinary individuals
into perpetrators of evil.
We set aside those whose
evil behavior is enduring
and extensive, such as tyrants
like Idi Amin, Stalin and
Hitler. Heroes of the
moment are also contrasted
with lifetime heroes.
The
heroic action of Rosa Parks
in a Southern bus, of Joe
Darby in exposing the Abu
Ghraib tortures, of NYC
firefighters at the World
Trade Center's
disaster are acts of bravery
at that time and place. The
heroism of Mother Teresa,
Nelson Mandela, and Gandhi
is replete with valorous
acts repeated over a lifetime.
That chronic heroism is to
acute heroism as valour is
to bravery.
This
view implies that any of
us could as easily become
heroes as perpetrators of
evil depending on how we
are impacted by situational
forces. We then want to discover
how to limit, constrain,
and prevent those situational
and systemic forces that
propel some of us toward
social pathology.
It
is equally important
for our society to foster
the heroic imagination
in our citizens by conveying
the message that anyone
is a hero-in-waiting
who will be counted upon
to do the right thing
when the time comes to
make the heroic decision
to act to help or to
act to prevent harm. |
JAMES
O'DONNELL
Classicist;
Cultural Historian; Provost,
Georgetown University; Author, Avatars
of the Word
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/odonnell100.jpg)
Marx
was right: the "state" will
evaporate and cease to
have useful meaning as
a form of human organization
From
the earliest Babylonian and
Chinese moments of "civilization",
we have agreed that human
affairs depend on an organizing
power in the hands of a few
people (usually with religious
charisma to undergird their
authority) who reside in
a functionally central location.
"Political science" assumes
in its etymology the "polis" or
city-state of Greece as the
model for community and government.
But
it is remarkable how little
of human excellence and achievement
has ever taken place in capital
cities and around those elites,
whose cultural history is
one of self-mockery and implicit
acceptance of the marginalization
of the powerful. Borderlands
and frontiers (and even suburbs)
are where the action is.
But
as long as technologies of
transportation and military
force emphasized geographic
centralization and concentration
of forces, the general or
emperor or president in his
capital with armies at his
beck and call was the most
obvious focus of power. Enlightened
government constructed mechanisms
to restrain and channel such
centralized authority, but
did not effectively challenge
it.
So
what advantage is there today
to the nation state? Boundaries
between states enshrine and
exacerbate inequalities and
prevent the free movement
of peoples. Large and prosperous
state and state-related organizations
and locations attract the
envy and hostility of others
and are sitting duck targets
for terrorist action. Technologies
of communication and transportation
now make geographically-defined
communities increasingly
irrelevant and provide the
new elites and new entrepreneurs
with ample opportunity to
stand outside them. Economies
construct themselves in spite
of state management and money
flees taxation as relentlessly
as water follows gravity.
Who
will undergo the greatest
destabilization as the state
evaporates and its artificial
protections and obstacles
disappear? The sooner it
happens, the more likely
it is to be the United States.
The longer it takes ... well,
perhaps the new Chinese empire
isn't quite the landscape-dominating
leviathan of the future that
it wants to be. Perhaps in
the end it will be Mao who
was right, and a hundred
flowers will bloom there. |
JOHN
ALLEN PAULOS
Professor
of Mathematics, Temple University,
Philadelphia; Author, A
Mathematician Plays the Stock
Market
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/paulos100.jpg)
The
self is a conceptual
chimera
Doubt
that a supernatural being
exists is banal, but the
more radical doubt that
we exist, at least as anything
more than nominal, marginally
integrated entities having
convenient labels like "Myrtle" and "Oscar," is
my candidate for Dangerous
Idea. This is, of course,
Hume's idea —
and Buddha's as well — that
the self is an ever-changing
collection of beliefs, perceptions,
and attitudes, that it is
not an essential and persistent
entity, but rather a conceptual
chimera. If this belief ever
became widely and viscerally
felt throughout a society — whether
because of advances in neurobiology,
cognitive science, philosophical
insights, or whatever — its
effects on that society
would be incalculable.
(Or so this assemblage
of beliefs, perceptions,
and attitudes sometimes
thinks.)
|
CLIFFORD
PICKOVER
Author, Sex,
Drugs, Einstein, and
Elves
![](/web/20150820142557im_/http://edge.org/q2006/images/pickover100.jpg)
We
are all virtual
Our desire for
entertaining virtual
realities is increasing. As
our understanding
of the human brain
also accelerates,
we will create
both imagined realities
and a set of memories
to support these
simulacrums. For
example, someday
it will be possible
to simulate your
visit to the Middle
Ages and, to make
the experience
realistic, we may
wish to ensure
that you believe yourself
to actually be
in the Middle Ages.
False memories
may be implanted,
temporarily overriding
your real memories.
This should be
easy to do in the
future — given
that we can already
coax the mind to
create richly detailed
virtual worlds
filled with ornate
palaces and strange
beings through
the use of the
drug DMT (dimethyltryptamine). In
other words, the
brains of people
who take DMT appear
to access a treasure
chest of images
and experience
that typically
include jeweled
cities and temples,
angelic beings,
feline shapes,
serpents, and shiny
metals. When we
understand the
brain better, we
will be able to
safely generate
more controlled
visions.
Our brains are
also capable of
simulating complex
worlds when we
dream. For
example, after
I watched a movie
about people on
a coastal town
during the time
of the Renaissance,
I was “transported” there
later that night
while in a dream.
The mental simulation
of the Renaissance
did not have to
be perfect, and
I'm sure that there
were myriad flaws. However,
during that dream
I believed I
was in the Renaissance.
If
we understood the nature
of how the mind induces
the conviction of reality,
even when strange, nonphysical
events happen in the dreams,
we could use this knowledge
to ensure that
your simulated trip to
the Middle Ages seemed
utterly real, even if the
simulation was imperfect.
It will be easy to create
seemingly realistic virtual
realities because we don't
have to be perfect or even
good with respect to the
accuracy of our simulations
in order to make them seem
real. After all,
our nightly dreams usually
seem quite real even if
upon awakening we realize
that logical or structural
inconsistencies existed
in the dream.
In the future, for each of
your own real lives, you
will personally create ten
simulated lives. Your day
job is a computer programmer
for IBM. However, after work,
you'll be a knight with shining
armor in the Middle Ages,
attending lavish banquets,
and smiling at wandering
minstrels and beautiful princesses.
The next night, you'll be
in the Renaissance, living
in your home on the Amalfi
coast of Italy, enjoying
a dinner of plover, pigeon,
and heron.
If this ratio of one real
life to ten simulated lives
turned out to be representative
of human experience, this
means that right now, you
only have a one in ten chance
of being alive on the actual
date of today. |
|