All the current thinking in cognitive science points to our having a cognitive 
sense of a relation before we apply it to sensory evidence. First we know 
(construct) and then we "see".  Seems counterintuitive but that's the "notion" 
being examined.  Cheerskep seems to insist that we receive unrestricted raw 
data and process it.  But even what we say is raw  may actually be chosen by 
predeterminations.  After all, any of us would agree that we aren't really 
aware of all events in our midst. I am inclined to believe (and I think we 
always believe before we do anything at all) that we have our relation 
templates, as it were,  and those filter what comprises the "raw" sensory data. 
 If so, then our cognitive relations come before events in our experience. 
Nuanced, the process is likely to be a feed-back loop, where these apriori 
relations are continually adjusting according to their usefulness at some deep 
cognitive level. Unhappily, perhaps, the old cliche
 that we see what we know is true. We have created "relations" and then we see 
them, and make adjustments as needed.
WC


--- On Wed, 10/8/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: On unjustified assumptions of "existent" entities
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 6:07 PM
> 1)If there is no relation(ship) between crime and
> punishment, would you view 
> the court system as inane?
> 2) If people don't learn by establishing relations
> between antecedents and 
> consequents, how would you explain changes in behaviour?
> Behaviour changes 
> because people imagine things?
> Geoff C
> 
> 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: On unjustified assumptions of
> "existent" entities
> >Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:11:57 EDT
> >
> >I asserted that so-called "relations" are
> entirely notional figments, that
> >there are no external-to-the-mind entities that we
> think we're citing when 
> >we
> >use the word 'relation'.

> >(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

Reply via email to