/cognititon/

File: lars-v-andersen-09.jpg (221KB, 1500x1001px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1500x1001px

>>10008601

Kinda. The things that are closest on the tree should be much closer. Linguistics doesn't go to logic, we can have logic without linguistics. Higher level math is cognitively entirely separate from logic, especially in the linguistic sense. We do math in numbers, language in words/pictures/shapes but most importantly when picturing and not writing out in semantic concepts.

The neurocognitive definition of semantic memory is very different from the definition of any of its constituent words.


Offhand, I'm a senior in my undergrad who has done 2 years of neuro research with my professors, going to grad school for it. I'm on /lit/ because I like lit. I'll answer what I can about cognition, or point you in the right direction.

>>10008625
How can maths exist without a system of logic?

>>10008601
>Mathematics
>Not in the Nature side
triggered.jpg

>>10008601
Where's medicine? You just have neurology.
And why is deep learning branching out from computer science? Shouldn't it be directly from mathematics?

>>10008921
Since being formalised it only does but not before that.

>>10008601
Why does this include "the big bang theory" and "dark matter" but omits a lot of fields? The image seems random and incomprehensive.

>>10008946
Medecine isn't really a science, it's more like a combination of sciences into a field with a practical use, like engineering
Medical science is a science though

OP here

>>10008960
I drew it myself in photoshop and I don't know much about STEM. that's why it's spotty.

>>10008625
>things that are closest on the tree should be much closer
it isn't really horizontally to scale. how "natural" things are is pretty subjective.

>we can have logic without linguistics
so how are math, logic, and linguistics related? can you draw a tree with the three of them for me and maybe some related stuff?

>>10008931
>Mathematics not in the Nature side
the entire tree could actually wrap around such that both string theory and big bang theory are grounded in mathematics. this would make the tree recursive.

>>10008946
>Where's medicine?
on a different graph

>>10008956
>How can maths exist without a system of logic?
>Since being formalised it only does but not before that.
i'm really interested in this can you please elaborate or link to wikipedia

OP again

>>10008625
the biggest question for me is, since all natural phenomena essentially reduce to mathematics, could the entire tree recurse with math branching into quantum physics?

That could explain why it's so difficult for us to separate nature and artifice.

>>10008601
perhaps math/logic should go where cybernetics is in the bottom left corner.

is math not the microcosmic artifice?

>>10008921

It can't in the real world, but in our minds and in our cognition, the two are separate. You are capable and able to accept and understand illogical mathematical facts, such as the sizes of infinity, etc. A lot of things that are true in the real world don't apply to how people think.

>>10009331

I'll work on drawing a tree but we had logic long before we had words, much less written language. Early homo-sapiens, neanderthals, homo erectus, and even homo habilus figured out how to better their tools. Even a crude reasoning is a based in the concept of logic. You can understand that a pile of five rocks is greater than a pile of three without having a linguistic or even a semantic concept of any of them.

>>10009354

I'm entirely unqualified to comment on most of the given graphic. I know a good amount about cognition, a good amount of biology, chemistry, neuroscience, cell bio and neuro bio. Mathematics is truly the fundamentals underpinnings of our universal fabric, but it is not the prevalent factor in our minds. A man shaped of stone in a world made of stone does not notice the stone first. He sees everything else, before turning inward.

We usually understand cognition in one of a few models (that I'll look up in a few minutes), but the simplest is thee biopsychosocial approach, declaring that who we are and how we understand is a factor of our biology, our individual psychology, and our cultural upbringing. Top down processing is the psychological notion that you filter every thing you see through your prior conceptions and "knowledge" which brings in cultural upbringing. I see a zeppelin. A tribal man swears it is an ancient ghost.

Phenomenology is subject to this. Both are effected by the basic neuro, how much caffeine you've had determines if you fade out or hallucinate.

Linguist here

>>10009331
>so how are math, logic, and linguistics related?
Semantics is a sub field of linguistics which seeks to understand what "meaning" is and how it works in language, and on a larger scale in our cognition. The essential question is: what is it for an utterance to have semantic content? What does that content look like?

In the Chomskyan tradition, that question is usually approached by positing semantic content as essentially resembling an abstracted combination of operators and items, namely components (basically properties). For example, if you have a sentence like "The dog died", you could model this in a logical system as X DOG (X CHANGE TO (X NOT ALIVE)) where DOG is defined as X NOT HUMAN X ANIMATE X QUADRUPEDAL, etc.. These statements are held to be the "ideational content" of an utterance, i.e. the pre-linguistic meaning that is in our heads before it is articulated through language.

These abstractions often resemble those of formal logic, which studies validity in argument by use of "inference rules". However it is quite unclear how formal logic proper should factor into this investigation because, while linguists would insist on a single system that is universal across all humans, logicians are quite content to entertain and compare various systems, none of which fully meet the criteria for explaining the many phonemena of language.

It would be more accurate to observe that both studies are concerned with rules of syntax and semantics applied to a system -- the linguist's system is natural language, which he attempts to describe accurately, the logician's system is a 'formal language' he prescribes for the purpose of study. These formal languages are not nearly as vast in their expressive range and syntactic complexity than any natural language, because they don't need to be.

Both however use essentially the same fundemental mathematical concepts, just to accomplish different things. Thus it is not simple to reconcile them into a single origin or wider discipline.

>>10010915
>You can understand that a pile of five rocks is greater than a pile of three without having a linguistic or even a semantic concept of any of them.
I'm guessing here that when you say "logic" you're referring more specifically to inference rules, which I agree we possessed before language. However to say that we wouldn't need semantics is saying that wouldn't a conception of things or relations between them to reason. That is clearly impossible. To know that five rocks is greater than three rocks requires that you know what "five" "three" and "greater than" mean (not to mention "rocks"). As I said above, logic, in the sense of a system of inference rules, requires a syntax and semantics in order to construct meaningful expressions upon which those rules apply.

>>10010915
Would a geologist say the pile of 5 rocks is greater than the pile of 3?

>>10009331
Chemical Engineer here, yes the tree is recursive because the whole thing is just bullshit you are trying to fit to your nonsensical graph.

>>10012268
are you a semanticist? where you at?

Why is theology out there in the boonies? Is it because it claims access to extra-human knowledge?