|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2006 : 04:43:34
|
|
[Forum spam from PhysOrgForums deleted - Dave W.]
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 09:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst...
I think that cognitive science has developed a possible paradigm that will significantly change our Western views over time. Do you agree?
The philosophical aspect of "cognitive science" appears to have become somewhat of a philosophy unto itself. The adherents of the philosophy seem to want to legitimize it by enveloping it in pseudo-scientific language drawn from other areas of cognitive science, those areas which actually are concerned with empirical observation. It seems to be based on some pretty vague statements -- the mind is inherently embodied, thought is mostly unconscious, abstract concepts are largely metaphorical -- which are broadly ambiguous, so much so that it makes them unsupportable with evidence. And without evidential support, it's likely the philosophy of "cognitive science" will remain forever in the realms of the totally unscientific.
A million college kids on a million hits of windowpane sitting in a million dorm rooms talking philosophy with another million students equally under the influence would come up with a body of material every bit as scientifically valid as the philosophy of "cognitive science" of which you speak (and possibly did). And a million college kids on acid are unlikely to significantly change our Western views. So to answer your question, no, I don't agree.
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 09:34:07 [Permalink]
|
I read the OP and mostly thought "And?" So the brain is able to categorize.
quote:
“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”
1) Humans are animals, therefore human reason is animal reason. Yawn.
2) Yes, what we perceive as reality is provided by the senses and may or may not be objective. Yawn. That is why humans devised the scientific method, in order to get as close to objectivity as possible, and eliminate the inhernet human bias.
I see nothing but a regurgiation of what everyone already knows. Except for:
quote:
The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
These "findings" are meaningless. If this is what "cognitive science" is, then is serves no use.
quote:
Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason.
What does Darwin have to do with "autonomy of reason"? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 10:13:50 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack
Are you speaking with the knowledge gained from reading such books as "Philosophy in the Flesh" or are your statements based on other than knowledge? |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 10:20:31 [Permalink]
|
Pleco says--"1) Humans are animals, therefore human reason is animal reason. Yawn."
Western tradition reserves reason for humans and not to other animals. Does your yawn indicate that you differ with this tradition and agree with me? If so then I do not comprehed the rest of your post. You seem to constantly contradict your self. Is your cavalier attitude a sign that you have read about these matters and find them wanting? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 10:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
I think that cognitive science has developed a possible paradigm that will significantly change our Western views over time. Do you agree?
I think that you're at least 70 years behind the times. And since the "Western views" you're speaking out against (like evolution denial or mind/body dualism) aren't arrived at through logic or reasoning, but through faith and desire, then changing those views won't come through reading books on cognitive science, but must be dealth with at a more fundamental layer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 10:56:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst...
Are you speaking with the knowledge gained from reading such books as "Philosophy in the Flesh" or are your statements based on other than knowledge?
Neither. My comments are based on the knowledge of what does or does not constitute legitimate science, a knowledge of which you, based on your original post, your reply to me, and your reply to pleco, seem to have at best a minimal grasp.
Your attitude that in order to possess knowledge one must be familiar with the specific reading material which you find so enlightening is quite condescending. But being as how this is a skeptics' forum, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and cut to the chase. You've made the following allegations:The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
Western tradition reserves reason for humans and not to other animals. Provide legitimate scientifically acceptable evidence that these statements are true. Hint: You'll need to clearly define the statements themselves before providing the evidence, because as they stand, at least the first three are so ambiguous as to be, as pleco already mentioned, meaningless.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 11:22:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Pleco says--"1) Humans are animals, therefore human reason is animal reason. Yawn."
Western tradition reserves reason for humans and not to other animals. Does your yawn indicate that you differ with this tradition and agree with me? If so then I do not comprehed the rest of your post. You seem to constantly contradict your self. Is your cavalier attitude a sign that you have read about these matters and find them wanting?
My yawn indicates that your diatribe is boring at best. I also disagree with your definitions of "western tradition." Please indicate where I "constantly" contradict myself. Further, you come into this forum, drop a bunch of mystical blah blah with no links or other references, then chide us for not doing any research?
However, I read YOUR post and found it extremely wanting, in that I'm wanting to quit this discussion.
However, if you post with links and references and can back up what you say outside of meaningless blah blah, then I would further love to dissect your faith.
Also, please define "reason".
Of course, animals other than human are not able to come up with "cognitive science", but that just indicates their superiority to us in some aspects. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/16/2006 11:27:10 |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 11:51:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
I think that cognitive science has developed a possible paradigm that will significantly change our Western views over time. Do you agree?
I think that you're at least 70 years behind the times. And since the "Western views" you're speaking out against (like evolution denial or mind/body dualism) aren't arrived at through logic or reasoning, but through faith and desire, then changing those views won't come through reading books on cognitive science, but must be dealth with at a more fundamental layer.
Descartes arrived at the mind/body dichotomy through reason as described in his "Meditations".
Cognitive science, as described in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh", has done what I consider to be an excellent job of challenging Western tradition. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 13:20:08 [Permalink]
|
Please forgive me, but I don't understand much of any of this and the OP has been sent off to that great, dismal void of forum moderation. I need a little enlightenment. Let's start at the beginning.
Please define "western tradition" as it relates to science.
I ask because most of tradition is no more than another set of self-inflicted chains and properly done science knows no boundries save the laws of physics.
A google on Philosophy in the Flesh has yielded this: quote:
How Cognitive Science Reopens
Central Philosophical Questions
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
These are three major findings of cognitive science. More than two millennia of a priori philosophical speculation about these aspects of reason are over. Because of these discoveries, philosophy can never be the same again.
When taken together and considered in detail, these three findings from the science of the mind are inconsistent with central parts of Western philosophy. They require a thorough rethinking of the most popular current approaches, namely, Anglo-American analytic philosophy and postmodernist philosophy.
This book asks: What would happen if we started with these empirical discoveries about the nature of mind and constructed philosophy anew? The answer is that an empirically responsible philosophy would require our culture to abandon some of its deepest philosophical assumptions. This book is an extensive study of what many of those changes would be in detail.
Our understanding of what the mind is matters deeply. Our most basic philosophical beliefs are tied inextricably to our view of reason. Reason has been taken for over two millennia as the defining characteristic of human beings. Reason includes not only our capacity for logical inference, but also our ability to conduct inquiry, to solve problems, to evaluate, to criticize, to deliberate about how we should act, and to reach an understanding of ourselves, other people, and the world. A radical change in our understanding of reason is therefore a radical change in our understanding of ourselves. It is surprising to discover, on the basis of empirical research, that human rationality is not at all what the Western philosophical tradition has held it to be. But it is shocking to discover that we are very different from what our philosophical tradition has told us we are.
Which makes it worse than ever because so much of philosophy is pure bullshit and the rest should be taken with a healthy dose of salt before buying into it.
What the hell are we talking about, here? That the mind can and does play tricks on us? We already knew that.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 14:52:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From review:
When taken together and considered in detail, these three findings from the science of the mind are inconsistent with central parts of Western philosophy. They require a thorough rethinking of the most popular current approaches, namely, Anglo-American analytic philosophy and postmodernist philosophy.
___ This book asks: What would happen if we started with these empirical discoveries about the nature of mind and constructed philosophy anew? The answer is that an empirically responsible philosophy would require our culture to abandon some of its deepest philosophical assumptions. This book is an extensive study of what many of those changes would be in detail.
_ Our understanding of what the mind is matters deeply. Our most basic philosophical beliefs are tied inextricably to our view of reason. Reason has been taken for over two millennia as the defining characteristic of human beings. Reason includes not only our capacity for logical inference, but also our ability to conduct inquiry, to solve problems, to evaluate, to criticize, to deliberate about how we should act, and to reach an understanding of ourselves, other people, and the world. A radical change in our understanding of reason is therefore a radical change in our understanding of ourselves. It is surprising to discover, on the basis of empirical research, that human rationality is not at all what the Western philosophical tradition has held it to be. But it is shocking to discover that we are very different from what our philosophical tradition has told us we are.
My suggestion is to simply ignore philosophical tradition because who cares anyway…
So yeah, people would be a lot like us. Skeptics and critical thinkers…
So why is it that we need this lesson?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2006 : 15:08:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
Descartes arrived at the mind/body dichotomy through reason as described in his "Meditations".
Really? Why don't you summarize his premises and his logic which led him to such a conclusion?quote:
Cognitive science, as described in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh", has done what I consider to be an excellent job of challenging Western tradition.
Lots of things "challenge" Western tradition, including evolutionary science (as you know), modern geology, gay marriage, rock and roll, recreational drugs, etc. How has cognitive science challenged "Western tradition" more or more successfully than anything else, and what does it matter if it fails to win the challenge? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 11:44:47 [Permalink]
|
| Spam0rama ding dong.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 14:07:42 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I have now figured out exactly what "forum spam" is, and I completely agree that it should be deleted. I do suggest, Dave, that you briefly define such terms, at the point where you delete a posting. The notice, "[Forum spam from PhysOrgForums deleted - Dave W.]" left me uncertain, as by chance I hadn't encountered "forum spam" as an expression. Without a little more explanation, some few of us might at least briefly suspect that a message was deleted for the thoughts expressed, rather than for being rudely "tagged" on the walls of every forum in sight. Personally, I assumed you had some good and fair reason to delete the post, but it took a while for me to figure out what the reason was.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/26/2006 14:08:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 14:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Oh! I'm terribly sorry, HalfMooner! I sometimes forget that not everyone is hip to the lingo.
(I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.  ) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
