I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
This will do it:
ReplyDeleteNim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human
by Elizabeth Hess
The Human Zoo: A Zoological Study of the Urban Animal
ReplyDeleteby Desmond Morris
Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships
ReplyDeleteby David Levy
Economics for Real Humans
ReplyDeleteHey, I think maybe I'll write that last one!
ReplyDeleteYeah, write it and send it to LRC to be published.
ReplyDeleteHmm, theey don't publish books on paper, but maybe they'll serialize it!
ReplyDeleteHuman Anatomy.
ReplyDeleteHuman Scale, by Kirkpatrick Sale
ReplyDeleteW. Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage
ReplyDelete