Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mild Shock Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: bullshit bullshit bullshit (Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:14:45 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1b7ce2bd-722b-4c2e-b853-12fc2232752bn@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:14:45 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="798692"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qo0ZfAJsio0+Zqj7nS9KccwpFnY= In-Reply-To: X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXwFqq5zCQ/09YQoRHaQdjczhhKq+7+FBNc3yrMXdJBTtTPbR+LXmHcGGZYlbGl88fzg9MLxW5 Bytes: 4005 Lines: 90 David Woodruff Smith writes: > And "cognitive science" has recently pursued > the relation of intentional mental activities > to neural processes in the brain. I call this bullshit. He confuses cognitive science with some sort of Neuroscience and/or connectionist approaches. Some broader working definition of cognitive science is for example: > Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary > science that deals with the processing of > information in the context of perception, > thinking and decision-making processes, > both in humans and in animals or machines. You see how much philosophy is behind. David Woodruff Smith published the paper in 2003? I don't think there are any excuses for his nonsense definition. Especially if one writes about pure form. This is so idiotic. Mild Shock schrieb: > > BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good > and funny to browse, he reports relatively > unfiltered what we would nowadays call > > forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little > pot purry, except for his sections where he > explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan > > figures, which are more pure logic of the form. > And peng you get a guy talking pages and > pages about pure and form: > > "Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology > David Woodruff Smith > https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm > > > But the above is a from species of philosophy > that is endangered now. Its predator are > abstractions on the computer like lambda > > calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The > revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only > dead people would be interested in, like > > may father, grandfather etc... > > Mild Shock schrieb: >> >> My impression Cognitive Science was never >> Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke. >> >> The time scale, its start in 1950s and that >> it is still relative unknown subject, >> >> would explain: >> - why my father or mother never tried to >>    educated me towards cognitive science. >>    It could be that they are totally blank >>    in this respect? >> >> - why my grandfather or grandmothers never >>    tried to educate me towards cognitive >>    science. Dito It could be that they are totally >>    blank in this respect? >> >> - it could be that there are rare cases where >>    some philosophers had already a glimps of >>    cognitive science. But when I open for >>    example this booklet: >> >> System der Logic >> Friedrich Ueberweg >> Bonn - 1868 >> https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL >> >>    One can feel the dry swimming that is reported >>    for several millennia.  What happened in the >>    1950s was the possibility of computer modelling. > >