/lit/ - Literature

>>22488504
>dont acknowledge that the concept of evolutionary mechanism, according to their own theory, is just a concept
Just because no word for 'tuberculosis' existed in Ancient Egypt, doesn't mean that ancient egyptians didn't die from it.

>dont acknowledge that the concept
I dont acknowledge concepts as concepts.

>you are just stuck with evidence and system of thoughts that a community accepted in your era
pic related. The right pic is reconstructable from the left one. We just need to point what the ancients didn't know. They didn't differentiate comets, stars and nebulas, for example.
>so you can feel powerful and right
the left pic is more powerful and right, than the right one.

>cant be answered with "because evolutionary mechanism" because, obviously, its just a cheap circular reasoning
no, evolution by definition is tautological >>22483540

Inability to formulate it in a satisfactory manner, however, by no means disproves it. It just shows limitations of our methodological toolkit.

>your notion of thoughts as a evolutionary mechanism
dynamical systems suck at precise formulations.
nonlinear differential equations are unsolvable
rivers change their own riverbeds
and biological laws alter with time

Complexity theory, capiche?

>the final theory
Precisely the opposite.
You are the one screeching "Thoughts are self-evident!" all the time, despite them being both unhelpful and undefinable.
What you are being told however, is: the connectionist net seems to be consistently robust, despite its utter unintelligibilty, and so far delivers.

You are screeching "The green ideas sleep furiously", and expect me to believe that it is some kind of profound truth, instead of an error signal of a query gone wrong.

>>19583293
>the continuous motion of the car is an illusion
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/cognition-obscura-reprise/
"All the information we presently possess regarding supernova and nebula formulation simply was not accessible to the ancient Anasazi or Chinese. As a result, it simply could not impact their attempts to cognize SN-1054. More importantly, not only did they lack access to this information, they also lacked access to any information regarding this lack of information. Their understanding was their only understanding, hedged with portent and mystery, certainly, but sufficient for their practices nonetheless.
The bulk of SN-1054 as we know it, in other words, was superunknown to our ancestors. And, the same as the spark-plugs in your garage make no difference to the operation of your car, that information made no cognizable difference to the way they cognized the skies. The petroglyph understanding of the Anasazi, though doubtless hedged with mystery and curiosity, was for them the entirety of their understanding. It was, in a word, sufficient. Here we see the power–if it can be called such–exercised by the invisibility of ignorance. Who hasn’t read ancient myths or even contemporary religious claims and wondered how anyone could have possibly believed such ‘nonsense’? But the answer is quite simple: those lacking the information and/or capacity required to cognize that nonsense as nonsense!"


> the purpose of a car provide continuous motion.
'Purpose' is an illusion.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/flies-frogs-and-fishhooks/
"We were just kids. We knew nothing about biology or evolution, let alone cognition. Despite this ignorance, we had no difficulty whatsoever explaining why it was so easy to catch the frogs: they were too stupid to tell the difference between fishhooks and flies.
Contrast this with the biological view I have available now. Given the capacity of Anuran visual cognition and the information sampled, frogs exhibit systematic insensitivities to the difference between fishhooks and flies. Anuran visual cognition not only evolved to catch flies, it evolved to catch flies as cheaply as possible. Without fishhooks to filter the less fishhook sensitive from the more fishhook sensitive, frogs had no way of evolving the capacity to distinguish flies from fishhooks.
Our old childhood theory is pretty clearly a normative one, explaining the frogs’ failure in terms what they ought to do (the dumb buggers). The frogs were mistaking fishhooks for flies. But if you look closely, you’ll notice how the latter theory communicates a similar normative component only in biological guise. Adducing evolutionary history pretty clearly allows us to say the proper function of Anuran cognition is to catch flies."