The Atheist Experience #341 Cognitive Science Part 2

Host Ashley Perrien and cohost Paul Wilson talk about cognitive science.

The Atheist Experience.
http://www.atheist-experience.com/
Episode # 341.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• The
• Atheist
• Experience
• Ashley
• Perrien
• Paul
• Wilson
• Cognitive
• Science
• Apocalypse
• Religion

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman (lastly, lastly) Tell us why you object to using language in a very accurate way, especially when discussing technical subjects? Go ahead, enlighten us. How is it that you use YOU to establish the definition of fuzzy words, as if you have some special imprimitur? What is it that you have against honest, effective and accurate communication? What is your agenda? Why are you unwilling to reveal your agenda? Do you think deception makes you more trustable?

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman (continued) lastly, have you progressed very far in your studies? If something does not exist, or can't be proved to exist in any concrete way, then it is not the burden of the one who denies the existence to prove it does not exist. The burden lies on the one who claims it does exist to prove that it does exist. Now if you make up just any string of words as a definition for "think", and then say "see a computer can do that", such a game will not fool anyone except a fool.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman (continued). Look what happens with a fuzzy word like "universe". I could say the "universe" is everything in the universe ( setof all sets fallacy), or I could say it is the sum total of everything, but how could the sum total of everything actually be accounted for and tallied up? "Universe" actually has no meaning, no referrant. The word can be used poeticly of course. And "universal remote control" is understood to mean "works for many home entertainment boxes". 

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman My friend, you really do suffer from poverty of language. Where in the comment to which you reply did I use the word "feel" - never - so then why did you "feel" justified in such a twist? Can you explain the exact set of events, step by step, that led to that result? As to your question, "think" is a fuzzy, super-metaphor that may not have any single or even fintie group of referants. How then can that word be applied to any situation? Please reveal your agenda.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT Why do you feel computers can't "think" if you can't define "thought"?

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman I had asked you to reveal your agenda - drop the mask. So far you have not. Words are usually part of game strategies for seeking power over others and Mother Nature herself. Humans come to play word games intuitively, due to Will To Power. The intuitive player knows what he/she wants, and then selects goal-oriented word game strategies picked up here and there. The dim sum strategy selection often leads to the misuse of words, which is then the sign of a hidden agenda.

[rh001YT]

@TheDeadlyGamesman I can't think of any definition for "thought" that is comprehensive. Ultimately such a definition would run into the problem of "the set of all sets including itself". Regarding words: words can be used accurately, but generally only if the author knows the correct definition of the word, and not just the dictionary entry (though the Oxford is a starting place). Some philology helps & one must know when to turn to specialized dictionaries, like Stanford Dict. of Philosophy.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT Can you define "thought"? I'd be interested in reading your response to that.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT definitions from from Macmillan

when a type of plant or animal evolves, its physical form changes over a long period of time

to gradually change and develop over a period of time.

Since you can't comprehend language, you think "growth" means growing, like getting BIGGER and BADDER every time. Here's a fun definition from dictionary(dot)com -- growth development from a simpler to a more complex stage

So this "continued existence" crap is a bunch of red herring nonsense.

[TheDeadlyGamesman]

@rh001YT I never said brains ARE computers. The person in the video did. What I said was it's a valid comparison though, because they perform similarly. A motor isn't anything like a brain, because it doesn't have any characteristics of it.

But you act like some English scholar when you don't know shit about shit. What are the differences between older hominid brains compared to ours? Probably not much difference in their look, but their functionality is what makes them significantly different.