"Real business value" is a cognitive bias of what is deemed important and not what actually is. The correlation between what a business pays for and what it needs is rarely a strong one.
A lot of public companies buy their own stock. Does that create 'real business value' or are they just gaming perceptions?
This reminds me of Wittgenstein's language game. Wittgenstein argued that to understand the meaning of words, one has to know what language game is being played. This is the same for 'value'.
If we understand that a public corporation is creating value for its shareholders by buying back its own stock then that notion of value is different from the value that the company's products are to its customers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reductionist methods of neuroscience have created psychiatric practices that treats mental disorders exclusively using chemical solutions.
There is of course no doubt that a person cannot think his way out of chemical imbalances. However, the brain's function is also to develop for itself the methods to find equilibrium.
Therefore, if we never give the opportunity for brains to learn how to do this, then we will always have people dependent of artificial crutches.
Indeed, a recent paper question the notion of biological plausibility. It's a fuzzy concept that too many researchers have a bias that it is well defined. royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
"Claims of biological plausibility are shown to be incoherent from a level of mechanism view and more generally are vacuous."
Wolfram explains why his theory of physics emphasizes causation (computational irreducibility) and causality (observer reference frame of computational reducibility). It's a fascinating model of reality that I also subscribe to.
Wolfram writes "Consciousness is not about the general computation that brains—or, for that matter, many other things—can do. It’s about the particular feature of our brains that causes us to have a coherent thread of experience."
Wolfram is unique in that he identifies the possibility of a different kind of consciousness that is alien from human consciousness. There is not just one kind of consciousness, but many kinds that create an empathy with reality in distinct ways.
The notion of differences between individuals and differences across classes of individuals isn't precisely quantifiable for brains. I think neuroscience is doing civilization a disservice by insisting on reductionist theories to quantify people.
A natural human tendency is to think like people think in the same way. Some people are surprised that other people might not vocalize their thoughts. Other people are surprised to find that some people can't visualize their thoughts.
But the brain is constructed by the accumulation of a multitude of mental habits. We grow by favoring one kind of habit over another. Many habits are not necessary, but we favor them because that is what we are used to.
Yes, this is an inconvenience that I (for different reasons) experience. That said, it is an inconvenience because of the rich uniqueness of our origins. Let's not demand that everyone understand our unique circumstances. That said, I can relate.
I've got a personal dislike for my name, but there's too much inertia for me to make any changes. My name is the 'John Smith' equivalent in Spanish. Completely generic without identity. What's even worse, it exposes a false identity. I don't even speak Spanish!
Anyway, minor rant. It's the inconveniences and misunderstandings that make life human and interesting. A life without inconvenience is a life devoid of meaning.
There's is a massive asymmetric information gap between knowing a theory is wrong and discovering the correct theory. Becoming aware of flaws is just the first step in a very long journey. But if you never see the flaws, you never take the journey and thus never get anywhere.
This is a double-edged sword. So we see flaws that are simply not there and take a journey, towards discovery, that is along a deceptive path. The path where one sticks to because it's the one without forks. The one that continually confirms one's own biases.
Persistence requires a level of naivety, this is what keeps us motivated. This is because if we knew how long the journey was before we began, then we might have never started it at all.