Two concepts that are exceptionally hard to define are consciousness and free will. Any attempt to define them becomes a murky soup of other words that are themselves hard to define. So I offer you a practical definition for both.

Suppose we define a creature to have consciousness and free will if it demonstrates the ability to use the external world to reprogram its own brain toward specific ends. By this definition, reading a book in order to change one's mood or gain data would be an example of both consciousness and free will. But a monkey using a stick as a tool to get bugs would be nothing more than eating. The monkey is not trying to become a smarter or happier monkey; he's just feeding his body.

My problem with free will has always been that brains are subject to the same cause and effect as all other matter. Even if you allow for some randomness at the subatomic level, and even if you allow that randomness to bubble up to the big world, it's still barely different from a lawnmower hitting a rock. A lack of predictability is different from being free to choose.

By my new definition, humans are truly different from the animals in terms of consciousness and free will because we make the most use of our surroundings as an interface for reprogramming ourselves.

by Scott Adams

Our technology tools and platforms are highly participatory and social. They take advantage of intrinsic human motivations to contribute in order to be noticed, to share opinions, to be a part of something greater than ourselves. Otherwise how would one explain remarkable success of Wikipedia and many other crowdsourced sites that rely on contributions of volunteers? Our business models, by contrast, are based primarily on monetary rewards. They are mostly hierarchical and non-participatory decisionmaking processes (Facebook's unilaterial decisions regarding changes in privacy terms for members is but one example). And they operate without the kind of transparency of information when applied to their own operations that is at the core of communities they enable.

If we are to truly fulfill the promise of technology tools we have created, we urgently need to design new governance models and new ways of creating value. In the least, organizations whose value derives from communities they create should incorporate the governance principles of successful commons organizations and use the same technology platforms that are at the core of their operations for governance purposes.

via boingboing.net

Marina Gorbis is Executive Director of Palo Alto based Institute for the Future, an independent nonprofit research group.

A new study released by the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing (CTAM) shows that social networks have become a major influence in driving television viewership.  More and more viewers are watching television shows based on recommendations from friends on sites like Facebook and Twitter and more and more people are finding out about new shows via their social networks.  Are social networks becoming the next big recommendation engine?

79% of those surveyed who are regular social network users said that they would be likely to watch a show based on the recommendation of a friend on a social network.

When we hear arguments against streaming in the business context they are often the same arguments that are made against distribution of decision-making and the value of top-down controls.

The anti-Schirrmacher: Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker about new media and media profileration.

We do things even when they don’t satisfy our biological urges, win us a reward or help us avoid a punishment. We play musical instruments during the weekend simply to master something challenging. We quit high-paying jobs to take new jobs that are less lucrative but more meaningful. Human beings, says University of Rochester psychologist Edward Deci, have an “inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise their capacities, to explore and to learn”.

There's a crucial difference in the way we make decisions about material and experiential purchases, as revealed by the second study.

When people choose material purchases they tend to use a strategy psychologists call 'maximising'. This means comparing all possible options. But because we live in a world of endless choices, maximising takes a long time and is hard work; so people often end up irritated and unsatisfied even when they chose the best possible option.

However, when people choose experiential purchases they tend to use a strategy psychologists call 'satisficing'. This means setting a minimum standard for a purchase then choosing the first option that fits the bill. Studies show that this leads to greater satisfaction with purchases and people are relatively untroubled by the existence of slightly better options.

Why material purchases are unsatisfying and what to do about it.

Und der dazugehörige kritische Kommentar aus Deutschland via SZ http://bit.ly/aJMfPq