Comments on: “World Wide Mind” http://www.designverb.com/2007/01/27/world-wide-mind/ Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:15:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: tango! http://www.designverb.com/2007/01/27/world-wide-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-4327 tango! Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:16:25 +0000 http://www.designverb.com/2007/01/27/world-wide-mind/#comment-4327 lisa, thanks for your very insightful thoughts. I'd highly suggest emailing PBS about the show with your comments on the show since they are in a pilot mode currently. I sent my comments and they were quick in replying. You can send them your feedback at : http://www.pbs.org/22ndcentury/index.html (at the bottom) cheers! _tango! lisa,
thanks for your very insightful thoughts. I’d highly suggest emailing PBS about the show with your comments on the show since they are in a pilot mode currently. I sent my comments and they were quick in replying. You can send them your feedback at :
http://www.pbs.org/22ndcentury/index.html (at the bottom)

cheers!
_tango!

]]> By: Lisa http://www.designverb.com/2007/01/27/world-wide-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-4312 Lisa Sat, 03 Feb 2007 06:00:16 +0000 http://www.designverb.com/2007/01/27/world-wide-mind/#comment-4312 Watching this show, I began to drift back to my high school English class, discussing Lord of the Flies. Is man innately evil or innately good? If we could all share all of our thoughts and feelings would it homogenize us? Or would it homogenize most, while leaving some open to manipulation and others desirous of control? Unfortunately, I think the latter. More specifically, I don’t think humans really want a peaceful utopia. As the philosopher Maxine Greene says, you can never know freedom until you find your limit. If you are never tested, you are not free. I think that itch to know more makes us human. It leads to positive and negative things—which hopefully balance out. The show really got me thinking, especially once I realized this wasn’t science fiction, but actual research. It’s baffling, frightening and awesome in its truest sense. However, I would have liked to know what the qualifications of your ‘experts’ are. I think a few philosophers would have been better. You could have a really strong debate here, so the show’s lack of intellectual depth was disappointing. I also thought the ‘guests’ were cheesy and over-simplified. The script could have had more interesting exchanges. For example, imagine Huxley saying that connecting to the World Wide Mind, were it possible, does not conclude that people would be able to experience and truly understand other people. Assuming that one’s thoughts and feelings—our minds themselves—are simply electrical impulses and, thus up/downloadable, is inconclusive. Personally, I disagree. Not to say that “plugging in” wouldn’t raise the possibilities for more accurate communication, but it wouldn’t necessarily make ‘the objective self’ up/downloadable. “I” wouldn’t be on the WWM, just some of my thoughts or maybe some feelings. However, I imagine someone, maybe your 22nd century guest, could disagree—and that would have been a more interesting exchange (script). Thank you for the show. In an age where the availability to learn, and be inspired to think philosophically, from a television show is rare, I am gracious that PBS is still committed to creating programs like this. Watching this show, I began to drift back to my high school English class, discussing Lord of the Flies. Is man innately evil or innately good? If we could all share all of our thoughts and feelings would it homogenize us? Or would it homogenize most, while leaving some open to manipulation and others desirous of control? Unfortunately, I think the latter.
More specifically, I don’t think humans really want a peaceful utopia. As the philosopher Maxine Greene says, you can never know freedom until you find your limit. If you are never tested, you are not free.
I think that itch to know more makes us human. It leads to positive and negative things—which hopefully balance out.
The show really got me thinking, especially once I realized this wasn’t science fiction, but actual research. It’s baffling, frightening and awesome in its truest sense.
However, I would have liked to know what the qualifications of your ‘experts’ are. I think a few philosophers would have been better. You could have a really strong debate here, so the show’s lack of intellectual depth was disappointing.
I also thought the ‘guests’ were cheesy and over-simplified. The script could have had more interesting exchanges. For example, imagine Huxley saying that connecting to the World Wide Mind, were it possible, does not conclude that people would be able to experience and truly understand other people. Assuming that one’s thoughts and feelings—our minds themselves—are simply electrical impulses and, thus up/downloadable, is inconclusive. Personally, I disagree. Not to say that “plugging in” wouldn’t raise the possibilities for more accurate communication, but it wouldn’t necessarily make ‘the objective self’ up/downloadable. “I” wouldn’t be on the WWM, just some of my thoughts or maybe some feelings. However, I imagine someone, maybe your 22nd century guest, could disagree—and that would have been a more interesting exchange (script).
Thank you for the show. In an age where the availability to learn, and be inspired to think philosophically, from a television show is rare, I am gracious that PBS is still committed to creating programs like this.

]]>