Regaining Consciousness

Andrew Brown ("How to Create a Soul", Wired 2.08) describes an interesting experiment that has been used to argue against the exist-ence of free will.

Classical Chinese philosophers might disagree with that conclusion. They have long recognised a "moment" before the mind causes the body to perform a particular action. Extremely practical use has been made of this for some time in the martial arts of China where Hsin, the idea or the intention to do something, is seen as preceding Yi, which involves the expression of that idea. The two are separate, yet linked very closely. There is the intent to raise an arm, then the arm is raised under the control of the mind.

With regard to free will, it seems to me that the experimental subject has the intent to push the button at some time because he has been asked to do so, rather than being left to perform some unspecified, involuntary act. I also think that the subject vocalises the moment when he is pushing the button rather than when he wants to push the button. Wanting is not intent. I want a cup of tea now, but I might defer the action of making it for minutes or even hours.

Could it be that the burst of electrical energy in the brain preceding the action of pressing the button is actually the Hsin, the intent? If so, we are not measuring something arbitrary, and the distinction between voluntary and involuntary acts remains valid.

Martin Liddament
martin@squib.demon.co.uk

Andrew Brown completely misses the point in his piece on consciousness. He comes close to recognising that science has no place investigating "consciousness" (not least because it doesn't even know what, if anything, it is investigating) when he accepts Jaron Lanier's claim that real-world objects like tables don't exist according to "science".

As scientists have failed even to explain what a table is in a satisfactory way (instead they explain it away), what chance have they of investigating a concept as difficult as a mind, or "consciousness"?

The problems being grappled with by all these scientists are the same problems that philosophers have looked at, unsuccessfully, for centuries; the scientists should at least read some philosophy, or, preferably, leave off altogether and do something useful like inventing a reliable way of accessing the Internet.

James Mackintosh
jmackin@mackie.demon.co.uk

  Architecture Conjecture

A few points in response to John and William Hunt's Idée Forte ("Archimedia", Wired 2.08) suggesting architects are uniquely equipped to give form and value to the digital frontier. First, one would have to guess that etymology is not included in the diversely demanding education of architects. "Architect/ure" derives from the Greek "arkhitekton", meaning "master-builder", "-tekton" (tau-epsilon-kappa) refering to carpentry as distinct from the Greek "tekhne" (tau-epsilon-chi) referring to art, artistry or technique, or the Latin "textura" referring to weaving. Given the similarity of sound and the less than predictable mutability of language, these may all have some common earlier root or they may have become connected by connotation into the same semantic space over the years. For the diversely educated, however, that vagueness is no excuse for impressionistic etymology (there is no "k" in Latin - so no "teks") and cod knowing references to the Net - as if Vitruvius knew HTML.

Secondly, the record of architects for creating communities de novo that people actually like and want to use does not particularly recommend them for the job, regardless, or perhaps because, of their education in the fields of anthropology, sociology and philosophy. To suggest that architects "should" be the people to design "acceptable new communities" on the Net is to carry over the top-down imposition of ideas that has created so many problems with the built environment over the last century. That anyone is uniquely qualified to create such communities would also seem to fly in the face of the great advantage of the Net, which is that its communities are formed by mutual interest, not design. None of which is to suggest that contributions by architects should not be welcomed. All contributions should be welcomed - and judged on their merits. Not judged on the institutional qualifications of their author - too often a misleading indicator.

Karl Kropf
101624.3130@compuserve.com

  The "F" Word

I write simply to express concern that a magazine obviously pitched at the higher end of the market should descend to the use of language which I, for one, associate with the lower end. I refer to the use of the "F" word in more than one instance - I did not peruse the whole magazine scouting for them but made a mental note of what I chanced upon - but if quotation is given as an excuse it will not apply in all instances. (Even quoting is often shown by an "F" followed by the appropriate number of asterisks!)

Having served an apprenticeship and spent two years doing National Service I am sure you will appreciate that I cannot lay claim to being a complete stranger to the use of this word, but I do deprecate the written form in a professional magazine which, in my opinion, can only be there either to shock or, more likely, to show that the magazine is "with it".

I do hope that this is not the only protest received concerning this matter and will make you think about this particular part of your policy.

Hugh R. C. Peterkin
Dundee

  Romer with a View

Thanks for the article on Paul Romer and his invigorating theories on economics ("The Economics of Ideas", Wired 2.08). The adoption of these theories by governments and corporations would certainly have positive revolutionary impact on both the perception and function of the global economy. I am stunned, however, that neither Romer nor Kelly mentioned that these ideas have been in circulation for many years.

In the 1969 book Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Buckminster Fuller states "we find that the physical constituent of wealth - energy - cannot decrease and that the metaphysical constituent - know-how - can only increase. This is to say that every time we use our wealth it increases." Fuller had been discussing the realignment of global wealth concepts since the 1920s.

While Romer's economic model puts these concepts into a strict and usable format for today's economies, Fuller deserves credit for his vision.

Dan McManus
danielx@earthlink.net