cognitive linguistics vs. predicate logic

[zeddicus12]

Are you a postmodernist? Cus you make no sense. And you talk just like one.

[pyrrho314]

@zeddicus12 : no I'm not. But of all my videos to reply with that, this makes the least sense. This is classical logic and cogsci... very materialist, nothing at all post modern about it except the death of metaphysics.

[alexxy911]

@zeddicus12 LMAOO!!!! Was that a serious video? I really hope it wasn't

[sashajw1234]

So if i reject everything do I have an empty head? lol Obviously not.

Rejecting a 'frame' requires a reason, a position concerning that frame. Anytime we take up a position on a proposition, a belief is formed. Doesn't matter what the position is.

We don't do 'nothing' with information when asked to process it.

[suren1946]

Who is this dude...? Is he a linguist?

[pyrrho314]

@suren1946 : who me? no, but this vid is linguistics... check out "the embodied mind" and George Lakoff.

[ScottishProfessor]

Good point Cogito. This video is short but very interesting and thought provoking. Frames based on objective truth? Great vid.

[CogitoErgoCogitoSum]

Bigotry and animosity are the mentalities of those who define their beliefs and identify themselves with the negative argument to someone elses ideologies. That is what anti-theism (the rejection of theistic possibilities) is.

[findthe1]

right. and is it not theoretically possible that after making a dictionary of 9000 terms between the two languages, there yet exists a parallel where nothing is accurately understood; Translating ancient documents often has this limitation, for example trying to convey what "snow" is to someone born in the amazon jungle, so much is lost.

[findthe1]

The town mayor comes to give me (W) a plague of wood and gold. I interpret (W) as "wow, they are generous people over a simple dog." turns of (W) symbolizes their punishment of decapitation while the criminal is sound asleep. ha ha ha ha.

[findthe1]

So the more he laughs, the happy I become thinking I have done a good job, all the while his fear of allergies is intensifying, and we never shared the same X, Y, Z.

[findthe1]

To agree on defining X, by saying Y, but if we do not agree on defining Y, we attempt defining Z. and never come with the same definition on any variable.

Ask a man if wants a Dog (X). He says Yes (Y).  I give him my X, but really his Y (Yes) means "I do not understand you" after seeing the dog he laughs (Z). I interpret his Z as he likes my X and that i have understand his Yes to be my same Y. But laughing (Z) is not what I think Z is, his Z communicates fear of allergies.

[pyrrho314]

yes, but what you describe is just like two people having different languages, except since they use the same phonic symbols, they think they have... it would become clear they were speaking a different language, and seek common expressions, relying if nothing else, on instinctual or obvious gestures.

[findthe1]

Maybe we could investigate cognitive agreement. What if person A and person B hold to different definitions of every single word, then communication cannot occur. What is "spaghetti" What is "a" What is "monster" What is "I" what is "don't" what is "believe" what is "in" what is "Hutchens" etc. no matter what is said Person B never accepts definitions because all definitions use words, and words redefined by person A. communication would be impossible. How Philosophers respond?

[pyrrho314]

I think we do all have different definitions for our words, but word definitions are intervals, and the intervals overlap, so there is some information transferred. E.g. if tall for me is over 6 feet tall and for you it's over 6.5 feet tall, we both call a 7 foot tall man "tall" and we understand each other. People in the border area where the intervals do not overlap are a different matter, and become a dispute.

[pyrrho314]

Furthermore investigating why one of us says the 6'2" man is not tall and the other says he is will reveal the difference. This is the process we take to investigate reality together, imo.

[dubbsie]

There is a gap in the logic there that there are only two frames of reference you can have.

The frame idea holds only if there is only one binary frame of reference that you can take. If the suggestion that when someone chooses to discount 'theism' or religion, that they have to replace the gap that is left with 'atheism', there is a suggestion then that 'theism' is the most logical starting frame. I doubt that a child has any frame until it is given to them.

[IllyrianVideo]

the only "difference" is that you can actually experience the "good" and the "bad" and the "beyone good and evil", but you cannot experience both, god and absence of IT

[pyrrho314]

that's interesting.

[ArchEnemy789]

Agreed. Atheism is defined by Theism. Just as "good" is only good because "bad" exists.

[Cimbolic]

Agreed. Theism and Atheism are "tied at the hip."

[gfurslf]

Exactly! That was my point the ohter night and I got laughed at! Atheism is defined by theism you can't have atheism without theism. So it's the same thing! opposite sides of the same coin? Can you have theism without atheism? I don't know.

[TarchangelT]

Isn't 'Cognitive linguistics' an overstatement? Can you have linguistics without being cognitive? Or is there such a thing as unconscious linguistics?

[pyrrho314]

but I mean in that case the field of linguistics which focusses on it with respect to cognitive science, i.e. philosophy of cognition, cognitive psychology.

I don't know but I suspect unconscious linguistics would be a valid field with actual phenomenon to study.

[chrismca]

I'm not sure that cognitive linguistics is an overstatement. Folks are using the term "cognitive" in this case to distinguish it from other linguistic fields such as sociolinguistics, which studies the relationship between societies and their languages. For example, different Native American languages have a specific suffix they attach to some nouns to indicate that the object has a spirit in it. They use this suffix often as they see many objects (trees, animals, etc) as having spirits.

[chrismca]

Also, as for the unconscious part, I think other than folks who study the actual sounds of languages, most all the phenomena linguists study are unconscious. A good example might be all that you know about syntax. Take a compound sentence; I'd bet you had a hell of a time consciously diagramming all their pats in middle school, but you had all the unconscious knowledge needed to form them correctly them when you were three!

[TarchangelT]

Nice! well said friend.

[pyrrho314]

chrismca: very neat example about three-year olds and sentence diagramming, missed it when you posted it. As it happens I always loved sentence diagramming but even so, I couldn't do it when I was three, nor do it as well as I could understand the sentence on its own.

[toofeoj]

some of the formal elements of theories of syntax would be considered to be unconscious.

[TarchangelT]

I think I may be confused with the level of conscious used. I would assume here we are talking about an awake state where certain areas of unconscious are being attributed to it forming in this case various cognitive functions from an automatic or hyper-cognition that makes its recognition irrelevant.

[TarchangelT]

In any event I don't know how any of this can be used as a viable defense or non-defense of a god or anything metaphysical. All things considered it just seems to me to be an elaborate venue of misdirection and superfluous nonsense.

[pyrrho314]

if I recall the point here is some people have wanted (on youtube, and elsewhere) to have atheism mean something, something such that "atheists are smarter" or just "atheists unite" and it's like uniting over and eraser. "We will use our eraser on the word 'superfluous' whereever we can!" does not really say what words you will write on the blank sheet that remains.

[chrismca]

It sounds like a lot of its power to simplify is drawn from its presentation as a dichotomy. As just one of many examples, where does an agnostic fit into the view presented? Dichotomies simplify because they ignore so much of the untidy (but very real) data.

[pyrrho314]

heh, I'll have to rewatch my video to answer that...

[pyrrho314]

in this context the agnostic is in a similar situation, without gnosticism, without inspirational spiritual knowledge. Dichotomies are generally useful insofar as they measture some distinction... which is fine if you don't take them as fundamental in themselves... i.e. something can satisfy the criteria of "goodness" according to you, but will not contain a substantial essences of "goodness".

[chrismca]

I think your "goodness" example is on the money, but I would disagree on one point. I may be too nitpicky here, but it seems to me that the very weakness of dichotomies is that they don't measure distinction, they only label their apprehension. Measurement of a distinction for many phenomena would require a continuous demarcation of degree, which would, I think, to run counter to the discrete categories dichotomies pose.

[pyrrho314]

fair enough

[jalomy]

this stuff sounds really complicated y do u chose to study it?

[pyrrho314]

the idea should be that it simplifies a complicated situation.  It explains what are otherwise more enigmatic. So it's more simple. no?

[jalomy]

well this stuff is not simpified

[pyrrho314]

it does simplify it. consider this metaphor, it was at one time mind bending to realize the earth moves... but it helped us explain complexities about out world, like the motions of some of the wandering stars (aka planet) an how they wander... why.

it is the same with psychology, people's behavior is the complex and enigmatic part, the idea of an embodied mind helps explain that behavior.

[salaamdayan]

suppose i ask you whether you believe in the pizza-god. and further suppose that you respond by telling me, "no, i don't." after hearing your response could one reasonably argue that your cognitive "frame" is now determined by the absence/rejection of the belief of the pizza-god. that seems pretty silly. it would suggest that before the actual rejection of the belief, you had already rejected it, and further, that your thoughts were arranged already to reject the belief.

[pyrrho314]

I don't quite follow... one, atheism is the rejection of all theism, two, yes, people do have frames which work to reject beliefs before the person is even exposed to them because the frame defines what is expected and therefore puts a limitation on what can be accepted by limiting what can even be "seen", that is "understood".

[jazzguitarman]

what about existentialism? I mean, you aren't claiming that the rejection of theism is a theistic framework, are you? It is anti-theistic, and it would be necessary if we weren't indocrinated in that way from small children. This anti-theist framework is a deconversion process neccessary to those of us looking for better and more realistic frameworks.

[pyrrho314]

atheism can mean anti-theism or "without theism"... if it is an ideology, then it must be the former and it will share the ontology of theism but take a contrary view. If it is the latter than it is not an ideology, but merely a rejection of one, leaving a whole spectrum of non-theistic ideologies available.

[jazzguitarman]

I actually agree with that totally, I guess I'm just trying to point out that it is the starting point of ontological belief for the "deconverting", and then it can go any direction. I just find the implications of not being able to separate oneself from that ideology difficult, perhaps if religion and philosophy were on equal terms for explaining your paradigm, it might be easier to except.

[Aarongamer]

dont fucking label me im just a black man in this so so weird world lol

[shtosuka]

I agree. I think many atheists are simply labeled by believers.. and about taking the position of a negative.. I also think this isn't really a choice yet.. like you say, it's still important. To defend some things which people that are atheists do believe, they have to address "reason roadblocks" until they are no longer taken seriously.

[pyrrho314]

well put

[marco054]

So if I say i'm not a racist. Than you would say: quit defining yourself to racism? Hm.

We have to deal with the world we live in. logically your right, almost in a "kicking in an open door" kind of way. But reality features theism and religion, so if we want to have an opinion about it some of us say: We are non-believers / atheists.

[pyrrho314]

but it's true in this sense... take a higher level of dedication, lets say being "not a racist" is your life work... then yes, you would define your life in terms of racism. And if you win, what you have is not a replacement philosophy, but a clean slate. Clean slates are nice, but we shouldn't get confused, when "racism" is gone, dedicating yourself to fighting racism is also gone, and so with religion.

[marco054]

True, atheism is not a replacement philosophy, it's a negative reaction to theism. Theism forces people to have this reaction, because of it's dominance in our culture. The replacement philosophy is e.g. humanism or naturalism. Atheism is important non the less.

[pyrrho314]

agreed

[pyrrho314]

you have nothing eh? poor guy. You don't want to compare resumes, but even if you really did... you'll have to make a point to be worth it. Perhaps you can try again.

[redliterocket4]

couldn't agree more... atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin. If you're over religion, call yourself secular and stop using religion to define yourself (even if its an inverse definition).

[0neironaut]

good video... atheists as 'slave morality', whereby Resentement becomes the creative impulse. Very right to say that brand of atheism is just a negative form of theism...

[trerrunus]

i agree. i'm really into husserl right now who argued greatly against a psychologism which is the thought that logic is reducible to physiological states of the brain. The arguments he makes seem valid. in addition, something like consciousness is not reducible to logic either in that consciousness is the doer of logic - i am more than a youtuber, youtube is one thing i do.

[pyrrho314]

I should read more husserl, I've only read excerpts and listened to those refering to him make interesting points.

[pyrrho314]

btw, I didn't know about this psychologism, I'm going to have to look that nonsense up.

PS: subscribed to your new account, but I thought I already had...

[trerrunus]

i changed my screenname again, and really, i bought the book "introduction to phenomenology" by dermot moran, and yes, by typing it out so you can read it means I do recommend it -- all i know about husserl is from that book.