Steven Pinker 1of3: The computational theory of mind

[ZachRose88]

I met this guy he was so down to Earth and comfortable to talk to it was awesome.

[LennonSucks]

Pinker as an intellectual is a giant lol. The mind will be unraveled by physicists, not by stamp-collectors. I'd take Penrose on his worse day over stuff like this.

[pawsoned]

Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.

[theinquisitor]

@pawsoned, actually he is a cognitive scientist, linguist and psychologist. What makes you think he's fabricated data? Also no scientist would claim his theories are irrefutable. Nothing in science is irrefutable.

[pawsoned]

@theinquisitor If he is really a scientist, then tell me what actual scientific research does he do or he has ever done (besides demagogic 'pulling the wool over our eyes' with phony lectures that only purport to be scientific, while in fact they're pure demagoguery).You can learn as much from Pinker's books about humans as from Moby Dick about whaling.

[theinquisitor]

@pawsoned, you can find a list of some research papers he's contributed to academic journals if you google: steven pinker harvard articles. This includes the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a highly prestigious journal. You can read the articles there and if you can follow it you can judge the value of the research yourself. It's far too technical for me, but perhaps you should submit an article to PNAS refuting his arguments. Or are you just an ignorant blowhard?

[pawsoned]

@theinquisitor [part one] He may have written few relevant articles, otherwise he would't have the prof., but that doesn't mean that he is another Einstein or Chomsky. In fact, he just follows in the latter's footsteps without due scientific contribution (contrariwise to Chomsky and his Universal Grammar). The problem with Pinker and his science a.k.a. pinkerism is that it's nothing more that quoting smarter people than himself without solving any scientific problems, e.g. he couldn't refute

[pawsoned]

@pawsoned [part two] he couldn't refute Chomsky's argument that animals are not equiped with Universal Grammar and although he claims to be (among other preposterous titles) an evolutionary psychologist he did not contribute to the field whatsoever; unless you consider his books popularizing other people's science as 'being a scientist'. If we strip his explanations of the professorship and the glamor and glitter of his persona what are we left with? Absolute hogwash!

[pawsoned]

Respond to this video...[part three] To make a long story short, if brevity is the soul of wit then Steven Pinker is a schmuck. His books, apart from silly anecdotes and name-dropping, are worthless from a scientific view point. He ought to stay within his area of psychology and continue observing small kids and do the 'wug' tests instead!

[theinquisitor]

@pawsoned, well now you're shifting the goal posts from saying he's not a scientist to saying he's not an Einstein or a Chomsky. It's a long way from saying he's not a good scientist to saying he's not a scientist at all. If you hadn't exaggerated to that degree and made these substantive criticisms in the first place I wouldn't have had anything to object to. I don't know enough about the details of his work to respond to your criticisms of it's value. Feel free to critique his ideas here.

[mightyafrowhitey]

@pawsoned dude... what the fuck do you have against Steven Pinker? you've copy/pasted the same paragraph to just about every video I have seen of his.

[pawsoned]

@mightyafrowhitey Dude ... I KNOW he's phony. At first I thought that he's OK but after reading his books I've discovered that it's just BS not science. Moreover, I'm preparing a presentation for my philosophy of language classes and guess what? There's pretty nothing much Pinker has contributed to linguistics besides pointless semantic hairspliting. I know I'm repeating myself but so does Mr Pinker. And know this, you can learn as much from his books as from Moby Dick about whaling.

[theinquisitor]

@pawsoned, I hope your presentation contains more substance than what you're saying here and in your video about Pinker. You simply state that he's wrong and has even falsified data and give no evidence of this. So who is really making baseless claims here? Take a single argument he makes and show that it's logically or factually in error, rather than just saying you KNOW he's full of shit. That may be, but that's how creationists argue, by mere assertion, and you should know better.

[pawsoned]

OK, I agree with you let's start with his argument about free will. You may want to watch a video called "Consciousness, Free Will & the Brain" on the MisterBusta's channel and see for yourself.

[PADRAEG]

Interesting insight linked to Dr Sarno's MindBody analysis. Pinker is beyond compare in simplifying the complex. I fear posting this trivial observation, so obvious to the most casual observer.

[pawsoned]

What he says then is that he believes in science - what a passing fad from the evolutionary perspective. All the hype that he's a part of is just a window-dressing; in fact, he himself admits many times that he does not know the answer.

[FeelOfFriction]

Silly reductionists.

[MohamedZero]

Thank you so much for this video, it's just what I was looking for.

[herrapikkarainen]

Life in a modern society is based on lying, and society demands of us that we also take part in the lying. In order to survive in the modern world, you need to constantly repeat the lies that are told you and also also to lie to yourself so that you, too, believe in the lies. You need to lie both to other people and to yourself. This is so that you will be able to cope mentally with the nagging voice in the back of your mind that says, This is not the way we are supposed to live.

[Drastam]

...the eye is a system that SEEMS to be designed for clear image formation...they dislike that the eye seems so designed and coherent.

[crazysoccerman14]

Why the fuck is the audience laughing? Stfu and let him speak!

[Berelore]

because he's funny (intentionally) and people laugh when people make good jokes (and sometimes when they are not so good just to be polite)

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

@Berelore A courtesy laugh every now and then, Bellow. Thank You.

[Tartersauce101]

well i notice i massive hole in this guys little speech...it doesn't even begin to explain our amazing capacity for imagination...or intuition for that matter.

[meyerjac]

@Tartersauce101

I would seriously recommend reading How the Mind Works by him. I'm almost done with it and it's extremely illuminating.

[emblemOFbeing]

ugh.....please....go talk to wj freeman, pinker.

[Awedree]

I think it's culturally biased to say the idea of eating worms is disgusting.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Forgive me, WHAT I'VE WRITTEN IS TOO SIMPLISTIC AND INACCURATE.

Many of the human mind's adaptations evolved through Natural Selection (what would help us survive).

I SLEPT AT ANOTHER HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, Y'ALL.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

EXCUSE ME, a good proprotion can be credited to SEXUAL SELECTION. Forgive me, Mr. Riddley.

[wtfallnamestaken101]

agree, zoaguyver. i mean really, did this guy not think for a second about what he was saying? 'engineering excellence of the mind' (!?) something engineered requires an engineer, definitive fact.

i cant see why he would choose such wording without having a really bad grasp of language or being a creationist (or any term you like for anyone above agnostic on the 'more than there is' belief scale. that said though, i know some agnostics that hold unevidenced, wish thinking type 'beliefs').

[Zoaguyver]

i think this is very likely to be quote-mined heavily by creationists judging from the over use of the word engineering.

[ExecutiveDmitri]

It sounds interesting, but hard to understand. Too much info flowing too fast. and he serioulsy needs Power Point assistance.

[robotaholic]

I can't get enough of this man, he's so interesting-

[AdiZetaFunction]

Gay!

[Charlymaumushi]

well... you're the one wearing the lotion so... Who's homosexual.....I apologize to the host for wasting your space.

[AdiZetaFunction]

You were the idiot who responded to my satirical comment, "Gay!" with some psychology blah blah blah bullshit!

What a fucking douchebag, you can't even type in a proper sentence.

Why do inbreds like you who pose like some intellectual hang around on the internet? Because in real life, your vast reservoir of ignorance will be exposed with a few questions.

Like I said, you might as well shoot your self to death and save this planet, because you don't know what you are talking about.

[Charlymaumushi]

Damn, nigga! You got all spiky there. lol You can't even make a "few questions". So why don't you go back to school and get laughed at with your satirical mind. As for shooting myself.....I thought of it. If I decide to shoot myself I'll post it on my channel so....Stay tuned bitch. lol

[theinquisitor]

Children, play nice or play elsewhere. You're scaring the clever people away.

[capitalcontested]

It's okay that you're gay.

[humanist7117]

Though the mind arose out of the brain, they have evolved different though interelated functions.

[magicbibledotcom]

I've only just discovered Steven Pinker, never heard of him since yesterday when I stumbled across his Brief History of Violence lecture. Very interesting man. We should cherish intellectuals such as him; Dawkins, Hitchens etc. because they're not all that easy to find these days.

[darwinkilledgod]

You should read his How the Minds Works book. He's really an evolutionary psychologist. The book Homicide by Daly and Wilson is also good.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@magicbibledotcom

Not Hitchens. But your point is valid.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom hahahahhha what a dumb butt shit fucker

[magicbibledotcom]

@GohModley Riggght. Because intelligence has to do with when you happen to come across certain information, as apposed to how you process and interpret it lmfao. You fucking moron.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom Interpret this...you're a butt monkey!

[magicbibledotcom]

@GohModley Yawn.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom Yeah, I yawned your mother last night, bitch.

[magicbibledotcom]

@GohModley Double YAWN. Lmfao a mother line, WOW, I'm so offended. Fuck me, so boring and pathetic.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom oh just shut the hell up you douche

[magicbibledotcom]

@GohModley Douche? lmfao. Shut up you cheesy cocksucker.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom I cheesed your mom last night, douche chill!!!

[theinquisitor]

@GohModley @magicbibledotcom this is not a productive area of discussion.

[GohModley]

@theinquisitor You mom is not a productive area of discussion last night!

[magicbibledotcom]

@GohModley Soooo boring. Lmfao, 'douche'. Cringe.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom STFU or I'll cring while I douche your mother AGAIN!

[magicbibledotcom]

@GohModley Cringe.

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom Think you can do better? Throw it bitch!

[GohModley]

@magicbibledotcom Gosh. Anything else? You sure know how to hurt a guy. You don't think I have feelings? You don't think I have a right to live? Maybe I should kill myself so much better people like you can live happily. Goodbye.

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@magicbibledotcom

Hitchens is not an intellectual. Intellectual = a person who produces ideas -- brilliant ideas! Hitch has produced none. He has a BS in English and he writes nonsense. Dawkins and Pinker, on the other hand, are qualified scientists.

[magicbibledotcom]

@LogicalFlawDetector An intellectual deosn't need to create new ideas to be an intellectual. There are plenty of intellectuals that do nothing with their intelligence. That doesn't mean they cease to be intellectuals.

If Dawkins had the same intelligence and ideas but happened to do nothing with it, and just so happened to waste his life in accounting or something, would he not be the same intellectual underneath?...

[magicbibledotcom]

@LogicalFlawDetector "An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and critical or analytical reasoning in either a professional or a personal capacity." - For a profession, Hitchens analyzes and reasons. That's what he does.

And he does it incredibly well. He's a renowned writer and essayist - and even Dawkins himself said he's not heard a man as articulate....

[magicbibledotcom]

@LogicalFlawDetector Hitchens IS an intellectual. What a person does with the intellect is a different matter entirely. Writes nonsense? ay aye aye. Clearly you have no idea about the man or a very poor idea of what nonsense is.

You don't need to be a scientist or be qualified in ANYTHING to be an intellectual. You prove yourself organically. Qualifications are arbitrary and many of history's greatest thinkers had none. Darwin for example was a self-taught self-enthused discoverer.

[CronosXIIII]

@magicbibledotcom But you do need to know what you are talking about for your ideas to have any sort of credibility. Intellectual or not, he is unqualified to make any sort of credible hypothesis. Don't even try to dispute this. A person of any intelligence needs to have the required information and context with which to create a credible argument on the particular topic. Without such, you are just a philosopher.

[hazhenmama]

thats an interesting explanation of human thinking process and creativity. human's brain is also for much more sophistcated function that we use it for our daily lives. I totally agree, only fools fall in love coz its totally destructive to human power and productivity. the parralel processing of information is a virtue for short human life expectancy. I do believe in human brain power and nature, but it needs more nurture

[ValleyofDyingStars]

If you're interested, Pinker addresses the issue of nature vs. nurture in the book 'The Blank Slate'.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Lust (or what most people prefer to call Love) and it's consequnces (offspring) is what drove the development of the human brain and just about all of it's functions. So you cannot say the emotion of Love (or what I like to call Lust) is a byproduct of the brain's true function (It is its sole function. Everything the brain does is tied into attracting and maintaining a mate). The two are inextricably tied together; one (Lust) causing the other (sophisticated functions of the brain).

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

How Sexual Selection shaped the mind. OKAY, my edcated nig, uh, excuse me my educated brotha. (You'd think The Mating Mind was the only evolutionary book I'd ever read in my life, huh.) HAHA

The mind is not a computer or a Swiss Army Knife or any other lame analogy similar to those that has been used to describe it.

[Tapecutter59]

Don't worry son, when you hit 50 you will find another use for your brain.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

It's not just my brain, it's all ofour brains. And it's n ot just at this age, it's at every age of our lives. You're too unintelligent and uneducated to comprehend this. But keep reading my blogs and you might get an idea. And don't refer to me as son.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Because I'm a daughter. OKAY?

[Scientisticsoviet]

@ PeeGeeBeeDee on the issue of lust shaping the evolution of the brain

I think you might be implicitly attaching a little too much importance to the adaptive importance of lust.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

I'm not being implicit. I'm explicitly attaching a lot of importance to it. Without lust, morality wouln't have become adaptive, language wouldn't have become adaptive, love wouldn't have become adaptive, etc. I'm not looking at lust as being just one aspect of the brain, I'm looking at it as being the main driver of the brain, highly connected to the rest of these modules (adaptations).

[Scientisticsoviet]

@PeeGeeBeeDee #2

To be clear on my last comment, I mean to say that there are other important factors which have influenced the way the brain is today. Of these we can count the hunger instinct, the innate like of sugars and fats, predator avoidance mechanism, etc.

Of course this does make invalid the fact that lust is an important factor, I simply wanted to put it into perspective.

Cheers.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

Yeah, survival and reproduction created the human mind. I gave you that somewhere a few posts below. I was just making the point that lust (reproduction) rather than survival was an even more important factor in the shaping of the mind.

So, no, lust is still an important factor. In fact, many of the brains modules evolved due to lust (the language module being one).

[morirmasalla]

this is funny... I cannot take it seriously, but denitively funny...

[papasitoman]

Why not? He does research into Psychology, evolution, neurology, history and psychiatry. What do you base YOUR opinion on? Ahh that's right... research done by people like PINKER.

[theantiantichrist]

yes, your right, its daft. were actually in a giant computer simulation, that built itself, and created soles out of dead fish from jam sandwiches.

[Mjhavok]

Vacuous statement morirmasalla.

[morirmasalla]

Yes, you are right. I commented without care. I do not follow him in full, but yes it is interesting. However, a bit limited, isn't it? [I mean, reductionist...] I just had seen the funny part... Now I had seen the whole talk, that way it makes more sense...

[Mjhavok]

There is only so much detail he can go into in a talk. I'd suggest purchasing his books if you are interested.

[suren1946]

Dude, you need to read more. Check out Lakoff's works, or more directly Sampson's EDUCATING EVE; or my own MA dissertation for example!!

[fisbo10011001]

Thanks for these references. But I hope that you do not imply to assert one way or the other?!

[elliotcheely]

pinker is brillant, i enjoy all of his books, thanks for the post.