Comments on: About Bruce http://brucemhood.wordpress.com Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:46:21 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: PaulB http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2299 PaulB Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:50:42 +0000 #comment-2299 Bruce - many thanks for a very interesting and entertaining presentation this evening, and for being so accessible afterwards - fascinating, and now looking forward to reading the book. Bruce – many thanks for a very interesting and entertaining presentation this evening, and for being so accessible afterwards – fascinating, and now looking forward to reading the book.

]]> By: brucehood http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2111 brucehood Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:40:49 +0000 #comment-2111 Well I think this is really Dawkins' point about the difference between a system that has a goal in mind (designed) as to one where there is no goal (chance variation and selection by competition), where complexity simply emerges as a consequence. Does that help? Well I think this is really Dawkins’ point about the difference between a system that has a goal in mind (designed) as to one where there is no goal (chance variation and selection by competition), where complexity simply emerges as a consequence.
Does that help?

]]> By: gary ashton http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2109 gary ashton Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:50:30 +0000 #comment-2109 bruce im enjoying your book but i have a question. why can't intelligent design be evolution, after all evolution would be the intelligent way to design any being? regards gary bruce
im enjoying your book but i have a question.
why can’t intelligent design be evolution, after all evolution would be the intelligent way to design any being?
regards
gary

]]> By: Mike Paterson http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1967 Mike Paterson Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:47:52 +0000 #comment-1967 Bruce? Bruce from Dundee Uni circa 1981/82? Party Bruce, coolest dude in town? Would you believe I began reading your book today? It's a fascinating topic especially the 'humans as pattern recognition machines' aspect in terms of explaining curious perceptual phenomena (I did Psychology at Dundee too). Excellent work. Click my Website link for some photos of that era - does the name Plastic Flies conjour memories? Apologies if I have confused you with another Bruce Hood. I'll get my coat. Bruce? Bruce from Dundee Uni circa 1981/82? Party Bruce, coolest dude in town?

Would you believe I began reading your book today? It’s a fascinating topic especially the ‘humans as pattern recognition machines’ aspect in terms of explaining curious perceptual phenomena (I did Psychology at Dundee too). Excellent work.

Click my Website link for some photos of that era – does the name Plastic Flies conjour memories?

Apologies if I have confused you with another Bruce Hood. I’ll get my coat.

]]> By: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1947 Konrad Talmont-Kaminski Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:41:26 +0000 #comment-1947 Lack of information NEVER protects the listener? OK, then, my alcoholic friend, you should know that the pub around the corner is having a 2 for 1 special right now. Matt, you are assuming that people are perfectly rational and will use information to their best interests. However, the main point of Bruce's book is that people are not and never will be fully rational. He did not tell the people living there of the history of the house because he, quite rightly, recognised they might not react fully rationally to this information, just like the alcoholic from my example. I would have done exactly the same thing that Bruce did. Doing otherwise would have been irresponsible. Lack of information NEVER protects the listener? OK, then, my alcoholic friend, you should know that the pub around the corner is having a 2 for 1 special right now. Matt, you are assuming that people are perfectly rational and will use information to their best interests. However, the main point of Bruce’s book is that people are not and never will be fully rational. He did not tell the people living there of the history of the house because he, quite rightly, recognised they might not react fully rationally to this information, just like the alcoholic from my example. I would have done exactly the same thing that Bruce did. Doing otherwise would have been irresponsible.

]]> By: brucehood http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1944 brucehood Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:18:05 +0000 #comment-1944 Are you saying that we should always tell everyone any information that may have some bearing on their situation? Surely not. Also are you also saying that the residents probably experienced ghosts? But yes, I did wonder if I should include the epilogue and mention that the house still existed. I figured that if the rest of the world knew then the book would have done pretty well and I could justify my disclosure. If the book did not do well then it would generally not be known. At the time, it just seemed wrong to tell them. Thanks for reading and commenting. Best Bruce Are you saying that we should always tell everyone any information that may have some bearing on their situation? Surely not. Also are you also saying that the residents probably experienced ghosts?

But yes, I did wonder if I should include the epilogue and mention that the house still existed. I figured that if the rest of the world knew then the book would have done pretty well and I could justify my disclosure. If the book did not do well then it would generally not be known. At the time, it just seemed wrong to tell them.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Best
Bruce

]]> By: Matt St.Onge http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1943 Matt St.Onge Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:00:04 +0000 #comment-1943 Bruce, A statement you made at the end of Supersense gave me an idea for a new book you could write; or maybe I'll write it. It's called "Playing God with Information". See, at the end of the book you talked about how you met the current residents at the cardigan killer house. You decided to TAKE information from them, but not GIVE them any information in return. This is critical information that you researched through "great pains" as you say. This is information that you were sharing with the entire world who would buy your book. The residents were the only people NOT to know. That's crazy, because they were the ones who needed the information the most. This is a classic example of making your decision first, then justifying it afterwards. Do you know why you made that decision? You said it was to protect them. Ahhh, no. It was to protect you. It was to let sleeping dogs lie. It was to not open a can of worms. It was to not inconvenience yourself. It's ok. People do this all the time. We all play God with information. The premise of the book can answer the simple question: Why do we all want the full information from others, while we withhold the full information from others? Lack of information NEVER protects listener. It only serves the person holding back the information. I'm a fan of full disclosure to an extreme and to let the chips fall where they may. Anyway, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I liked your book. Its just that the ending shows a clear reason why we have a Supersense; because people hold back the truth and we're left having to figure it out another way. The residents feel the ghosts, but it would be a helluva lot easier if you just told them what happened there like you told the rest of the world. Bruce,

A statement you made at the end of Supersense gave me an idea for a new book you could write; or maybe I’ll write it. It’s called “Playing God with Information”.

See, at the end of the book you talked about how you met the current residents at the cardigan killer house. You decided to TAKE information from them, but not GIVE them any information in return. This is critical information that you researched through “great pains” as you say. This is information that you were sharing with the entire world who would buy your book. The residents were the only people NOT to know. That’s crazy, because they were the ones who needed the information the most.

This is a classic example of making your decision first, then justifying it afterwards. Do you know why you made that decision? You said it was to protect them. Ahhh, no. It was to protect you. It was to let sleeping dogs lie. It was to not open a can of worms. It was to not inconvenience yourself.

It’s ok. People do this all the time. We all play God with information. The premise of the book can answer the simple question: Why do we all want the full information from others, while we withhold the full information from others?

Lack of information NEVER protects listener. It only serves the person holding back the information.

I’m a fan of full disclosure to an extreme and to let the chips fall where they may.

Anyway, I’m not trying to give you a hard time. I liked your book. Its just that the ending shows a clear reason why we have a Supersense; because people hold back the truth and we’re left having to figure it out another way. The residents feel the ghosts, but it would be a helluva lot easier if you just told them what happened there like you told the rest of the world.

]]> By: brucehood http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1889 brucehood Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:50:28 +0000 #comment-1889 Thanks Paul... No I hadn't seen the article - thanks for the link. Thanks Paul… No I hadn’t seen the article – thanks for the link.

]]> By: Paul Murray http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1888 Paul Murray Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:37:24 +0000 #comment-1888 I enjoyed your book. I'm a pathologist and I sometimes wonder about where the "soul" is when I hold a brain in my hands. I think the theory of emergence may have an answer. Anyway, I didn't see a link to this article from the Sunday NYT on Capgras syndrome so I didn't know if you had seen it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/research/09brain.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=when%20loved%20ones%20seem%20imposters&st=cse I enjoyed your book. I’m a pathologist and I sometimes wonder about where the “soul” is when I hold a brain in my hands. I think the theory of emergence may have an answer.

Anyway, I didn’t see a link to this article from the Sunday NYT on Capgras syndrome so I didn’t know if you had seen it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/research/09brain.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=when%20loved%20ones%20seem%20imposters&st=cse

]]> By: brucehood http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1882 brucehood Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:39:53 +0000 #comment-1882 Thank you Fiona-Jane... that was such a kind thing to write. Thank you Fiona-Jane… that was such a kind thing to write.

]]>