You first argue that "understanding our subjective experience is shaped . . . by information-processing and transmitting units within us" that "we don't perceive helps us think in productive ways. We realize that our views are shaped by unconscious biases, and that our thinking can be influenced by context." While this sounds good, these are hardly novel ideas--in fact, I think it would be difficult to find people who don't believe that unconscious biases and context affect human thought. So, this begs the question what value the network metaphor adds. Moreover, even if the network metaphor somehow lifts people out of the darkness and makes them aware of their unconscious biases and the importance of context, what guarantees that the the step after enlightenment will be "productive thinking." Isn't it possible that people will just confirm their unconscious biases with conscious ones and consciously use context to justify their previous beliefs?

Second, you discuss the benefits of the presumption of regularity that the network metaphor permits. But, you presume that such a presumption is beneficial or warranted. Are you suggesting that, based on our genes and memories, we act in generally predictable or inevitable ways? If so, what accounts for deviations in this predictability? And, if deviations become qualitatively or quantitatively significant, doesn't this call into question the "regularity" of individual psychology?

Finally, you argue that thinking about brains and societies using the network metaphor opens up possibilities for technology-driven (and accelerated) social change, and you cite the Occupy Movement and the Arab Spring as examples. With respect to the Arab Spring, it strikes me as a gross oversimplification of complex socio-political dynamics to somehow credit Facebook or online memes with widespread social upheaval (especially when, as Moglen noted, social-media is as much a weapon of State as it is a tool of the protestor). Even if we agree that technology played a key role in facilitating the uprisings across the Arab world, I'm not sure why we need your metaphor. While it's possible the "psychological law" of thousands of people changed, it seems just as likely that technology merely provided an end-around the traditional obstacles to organizing opposition in an authoritarian state. As to the Occupy Movement, it's again unclear how the "law" changed. Indeed, there is nothing "new" about the ideas or rhetoric underpinning the Movement. Resenting the "wealthy," blaming capitalism in times of economic difficulty, villainizing corporations, failing to offer any real or feasible solutions--these are more the tired talking points of the far left than the novel arguments of a new social movement. Again, even if we agree that technology somehow "changed the law," whether meaningful social change will occur is another matter. In Egypt, there's no guarantee that Mubarak will be replaced with a liberal regime that acknowledges, much less protects, the freedoms and rights we like to think are universal. If anything, the opposite seems more likely. And, the Occupy protestors have achieved little more than antagonizing the police, inconveniencing people who work in "occupied" areas, and supplying the 24 hour news outlets with a few weeks' worth of material.

-- MatthewLadner - 11 Jan 2012