Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 216 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#31707 - 08/19/09 06:21 AM Re: "Cognitive science" [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
"Cognitive Science" is used to mean "the scence of cognition". I subscibe to the claim that this is an oxymoron.

As for "science" being a product of "cognition" this raises questions about the nature of epistemology and its relationship to "scientific paradigms" which have both social and psychological aspects. In other words "science" involves far more than the processing of "sense data". "Data" by definition are never "objective".


Edited by eccles (08/19/09 06:28 AM)

Top
.
#31721 - 08/20/09 01:17 AM Re: "Cognitive science" [Re: eccles]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev--- Here we go again. What does this particular atheist understand by "god"?

Well as I have told you, and others, before, atheists have no beliefs in the divine, therefore I do not 'believe' there is no god-- I 'know' there is not. This always seems to upset believers, who state themselves that they know,without doubt, that god exists. So I usually state simply that I do not believe in god. This in no way sums up the true state of my atheism however. I do not believe in the divine, the existence of life after death and Oh! all that---etc:

Now to deal with the inevitable questions about the beauty of Nature, the glory that is Space, the power of music to move me close to tears etc: The answer is that atheists have not had an emotion or appreciation bi-pass. I am still human! I enjoy life and all it offers, and regard the misfortunes that do happen as a part of life-- not god's plan for me, or a sign of the all-encompassing ethos or something to do with fate or reincarnation. Just the consequence of being alive!

I will say that posting here has definitely helped me clarify the position that I have had all my life, which has remained the same since childhood. I've certainly had to defend it!

Top
#31725 - 08/20/09 03:59 AM Re: "Cognitive science" [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
[quote=Ellis]Rev., What does this particular atheist understand by "god"?

... atheists have no beliefs in the divine, therefore I do not 'believe' there is no god--I 'know' there is not." [there is no god? Clarify what you mean.]
=========================================
For the sake of new readers, I say the following:

Be more specific, Ellis.

In my humble opinion, what you say is far too general for me to take your opinion seriously. Meanwhile, here is what I want to know:

I want to know: What kind of god is it that you deny? Describe Him.

Has it ever occurred to you that you and I deny the same kind of god hypothesis?

If so, what's the problem?

_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#31727 - 08/20/09 04:30 AM Re: "Cognitive science" [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev-- you ask---What kind of god is it that you deny?

No idea-- If I knew what sort of a god I was not believing in then I would be allowing for the existence of such an entity. I don't.

I would like to share the same "god hypothesis" with you. You have thought your point of view out so much more clearly than I ever could, -more than I even want to, but we are not anywhere near the same idea here. I will say though that I find your belief less challenging than you find my,-- well let's call it disbelief for the sake of argument.

And there is no problem. I do not mock those who believe that there is some 'thing' that represents the 'other'. I just don't see it! Never have!

Top
#31729 - 08/20/09 05:16 AM Re: "Cognitive science" [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Just today, I wrote the following to a friend of mine at www.redefinegod.com

psychologist Dr. Stanley Krppner in Ca.

===========================

Stanley, this thought just came to me today: G0D and GOD.

Take note of the zero, 0, in the first acronym. Or, to be more specific, instead of 0, I could use, --the null. IMO, G0D/GOD is in the microcosm--the smallest things--and in the macrocosm--the largest things.

G0D in the microcosm
=================
In the first acronym I have in mind G0D as the no-thing from which all things come--creatio ex nihilo, the creation out of nothing, as understood by theist theologians.

GOD in the macrocosm
==================
In the second acronym, GOD, I use the O to indicate the the totality, the wholeness, of being, towards which all things, with our creative help, are processing. Check out the work of the philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

BTW, have you heard of what Seth Lloyd, at MIT is doing? His latest book is about PROGRAMMING THE COSMOS.
http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/

It looks as if--that is, if we are wise enough to grasp the concept--we are partners with G0D/GOD in the process of creation.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#31731 - 08/20/09 07:30 AM Re: "Cognitive science" [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
I may be repeating myself from eleswhere but I suggest to you that your attempts to coin* a word "God" (with or without a null sign) are really attempts at "psychological closure". In short, we shun "the infinite" as perhaps illustrated by our perception of the night sky as a flattened dome.But we are "doomed" to the semantically infinite in any discussions of concepts of "creation" ( in accordance with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).

So the word "God" (as all words) boils down to a token of communicative exchange rather than a representational symbol, and like a monetary *coin its "value" merely depends on agreed exchange relationships. The problem with "God" is that such agreement is often lacking.


Edited by eccles (08/20/09 08:00 AM)

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.