I am currently writing a 2500 word essay on the Knowledge Problem in cognitive science (no, I don't know why it needs to be capitalised either). I am, honestly. Blogging? Me? Nooooooo.
Nor am I watching the Lifestyle channel, waiting for Spicks and Specks to come on, drinking a glass of red wine. I wouldn't drink wine whilst breastfeeding, unlike those other white parents.
In case you were wondering what the Knowledge Problem is (yes, I know you weren't, but I'm going to tell you anyway), it is philosophers hijacking an artificial intelligence problem (which has been largely resolved), and panicking about whether or not it is possible to maintain all the information one needs to function in the real world, keep it up to date and always be able to pick out the relevant bits. Well, actually, they are panicking about whether any computing system can do it, since cognitive science is hinged on the assumption that the brain is a computer.
But it's ok, no-one really need panic, since the definition of "computing" is by no means fixed, and cognitive scientists just keep moving it so that their discipline doesn't disappear up its own fundamental orifice. So in the end, computing is clearly going to be defined as "what the brain does" plus "what we all know it does already". So the whole stupid question is "can something that is the brain actually do what the brain does?". Hmmm, let me think about that. Errr... yes?
Somebody remind why I did this ridiculous subject?
Oh, and I should just mention that I am currently hearing Muck randomly say "I can fix it" and "This is so cool" for no readily apparent reason. Perhaps I have a Bob the Builder fan for a ghost.