zombywuf wrote:
> > We think of things differently. I place philosophy with religion. I place
> > cognitive science with religion.
>> I hate this. Philosophy is mearly the act of trying to establish truth (or a working copy) through the means > of discussion and
> thought.
To put it in other words: A philosopher is trying to make people believe
in his philosophy. And the word "believe" is a general part of religion.
> Any good scientist needs to be a philosopher.
Only if he wishes for people to believe him.
> Science is slightly more than just looking at something and writing it down,
Er, really? Gees, now I'll have to change the program I was just
making...
> just because religion has poisend thought in many otherwise sensible individuals doesn't mean everyone has
> to stop thinking.
But do they think anyway? Or do they just boldly follow their
philosophy?
> > > If you want to use the two terms as synonymous, I'm not stopping you,
> > > but merely to tell you that most scientists who study mind, don't
> > > agree. Vive la difference (spelling?).
That's "Viva la difference" actually (if it is).
> > Scientists do not study the soul (mind), cognitive "scientists" do.
Indeed, noone ever considered soul as mind until we were talking about
science only.
> No doubt you could tell us in great detail how an individual neuron works, and how it passes a signal to
> adjoining neurons. You
> could also explain how neurons are arranged in the brain and to some extent which do what. You couldn't
> explain walking though,
> could you. The pattern and flow of signals throughout the brain is studied in order to model an abstract
> concept such as basic
> cognetive function. The brain is esentially a chaotic system (yes I do undertand chaos, I mean non stable
> and non periodic) and a
> chaotic system can often be accurately modelled by removing some of the detail. This is the role of
> cognetive science. To estalish
> the mechanisms in the brain which cause or create thought and hopefully the creation of an AI as a result.
Sorry, but as far as I saw, every thing that was once considered as
chaotic in nature has ben found to simply follow a set of rules,
therefore it is nonsense to use that term as a (part of a) fact
anywhere.
--
On who's side I am? Well hard to say, since I only say what have I
learned.
V yvxr ZvpebFbsg!
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?
Http://www.geocities.com/gtsc4/index.html
