Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
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: <v8ma4l$obv4$2@solani.org>
References: <b406aa35-c39b-46f3-862f-1cc4b75143ae@googlegroups.com>
 <1b7ce2bd-722b-4c2e-b853-12fc2232752bn@googlegroups.com>
 <v6731e$6eft$1@solani.org> <v8e611$k6gf$2@solani.org>
 <v8m566$ofoq$1@solani.org> <v8m7f7$oaq1$2@solani.org>
 <v8m91e$obh8$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:14:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="798692"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qo0ZfAJsio0+Zqj7nS9KccwpFnY=
In-Reply-To: <v8m91e$obh8$1@solani.org>
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.
> 
>