Dick, (01)
The whole idea of the "vs" is misguided. Any branch of science,
engineering, or philosophy that addresses aspects of cognition is
part of cognitive science. (02)
Unlike religion, no science of any kind has a dogma. The "laws" of any
science are always *fallible*. They are the best tested approximations
at any particular time. And emphasize the word *tested*. (03)
Unlike science, engineering adds the limitations of deadlines, budgets,
and available resources. Engineers know that Newtonian mechanics is
not as precise as quantum mechanics or relativity. But they also know
the conditions when Newtonian mechanics is adequate for the job. (04)
> Would you tell me if your knowledge of cognitive science
> contradicts the relations that I have described between
> existent
> space percept
> time concept
> view proposition
> knowledge (05)
I'm sure that you can find some aspects of some theories by some people
who work in some branch of cognitive science that are similar to some
of your statements. (06)
But I have my own deadlines, budgets, and available resources.
I'm skeptical about your notation and theory. So far, I haven't
seen anything that makes me want to devote any time to it. The
more you talk about it, the lower my opinion of it. (07)
As I said before, come back when you have demonstrated that you can
translate every sentence in one page of whatever text you choose
from English to your notation -- *and* somebody who doesn't know
the original can translate it back to a good approximation. (08)
Good luck, (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (011)
|