From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 14:54:02 -0400 Archived: Wed, 09 May 2012 07:35:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >From: Cathy Reason<Cathym.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<post.nul> >Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 13:00:49 +0100 >Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>From: Eugene Frison<cthulhu_calls.nul> >>To:<post.nul> >>Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:33:15 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary ><snip> >>I already explained it, Cathy. If you had read and understood >>the explanation in my previous post concerning this, you would >>not be asking these questions. >Or it could be, of course, that I'm asking these questions >because I find your previous answers to be incoherent, >disingenuous and self-contradictory. >The others are all Gibsonian-inspired; but Cognitivist >assumptions are so deeply embedded in modern psychology that >even these have evolved to become merely extensions of cognitive >psychology. The Cognitivist practice of trying to explain any >experimental result by invoking a computational module to >produce it, is endemic. Sometimes it acquires a character of the >manifestly absurd - one computational model had additional >modules bolted on purely to increase the error rate. I've been trying to following the discussion between Cathy and Eugene, but I'm becoming a little lost, perhaps because it's often about refuting each other's sometimes self-professed inadequately expressed points of view. I understand Cognitivism to be the treatment of thinking as a sequence of information transformations. It uses the computer as a metaphor for the mind. This was an improvement over Behaviorism which refused to acknowledge thinking. Cathy objects that it is too easy for Cognitivists to create just another computational module to account for an observed effect. I would agree, since it smacks of just adding another epicycle to account for the movement of a new object in the heavens. It's easy to do this because such computational models are not constrained much by the physical system that is the brain. But to require that an information processing model be more tightly coupled to neurophysiology would assume that thinking arises solely from the biology of the brain. Some people are happy with that and some are not. I have a problem with it because, for example, it leaves the near-death experience impossible to explain. Can Cognitivism be saved, or do you or anyone else have a better approach for modeling thinking than by concatenating sequences of information processing modules? William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp