I don't have a soundcloud to promote, but please support @Survival International as they try to prevent indigenous genocide in the Amazon:https://twitter.com/Survival/status/1075450770521251841?s=19 …
Show this thread
-
-
-
And coincidentially, I was at my grandparents' this morning and stumbled upon my next read:pic.twitter.com/E9Ev1WA3dY
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A classic
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Slick UI at the top, what kind of phone is that?
-
It's Xiaomi's MIUI! And the colour was due to my using Firefox Focus. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What phone do you use? The top bar is nice
-
Thanks! It's Xiaomi's MIUI, and it's that colour because I was on Firefox Focus at the time. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Scientists prove thinking is impossible."
-
You have to admit, it explains a lot about the world.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They haven’t given any thought to this.
-
I mean technically u couldn't
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
same energy
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
*existential crisis intensifies*
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Am I the only one who feels this takes some pressure off?
-
I thought so. ...dammit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
These sort of contradictions in cognitive science usually arises when two people argue at different levels of abstraction (synapse-brain-individual-situational-cultural). Then there is a big risk that you use the same terms to talk about completely different phenomena.
-
They speak about different things. Carruthers: What he means by "thoughts" are nonsensory mental attitudes, and they are not conscious. Chater: "unconscious thinking" supposedly incubates unattended and leads to sudden insights, but that this is not how thinking happens.
-
He's not criticizing the joke, he recognizes it's a contradiction at first. He provided an interesting explanation of how these two articles come to contradict while still being valid. This extends to many other scientific fields addicted to jargon, which is a problem as you see.
-
You have to laugh first before you explain people’s jokes back to them. I don’t make the rules.
-
both you and him can be correct. he's playing by the rules of being a cognitive sciences researcher with a phd while you're playing by the rules of being a dumb bitch with nothing to add, it checks out fine
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.