Mike Tintner wrote:
Er Richard, you are opening too many too large areas - we could be here
till the end of the month.
It seems to me you are using language rather loosely at times - &
inevitably you are going to have problems with what I am saying. If I
say "psychoSEMIOTICS," for example, that's exactly what I mean, and it's
v. different from "psychoLINGUISTICS". The latter is concerned with how
LANGUAGE use reflects brain/mind structures - the former would obviously
be concerned with how ALL sign systems' use reflect mind structures -
including all symbolic systems, (words, numbers, morse & other codes,
programminglanguages), all graphic systems, (maps, icons, cartoons,
geometry etc. etc) and all image systems (photographs, videos, statues,
3D-models, etc). - and why our total body of sign systems keeps evolving
along certain lines.
The way you have just defined it, "psychoSEMIOTICS" is no different than
cognitive science/AI. If it is different, specify how (that was my
original question).
Re Kosslyn etc, my basic concern is not so much with the relative merits
of different sign systems - of language vs images - but of how the brain
actually processes information - of what it does to "make sense" of
words and numbers - how it actually works, when you read this text for
instance. There is an actual "picture tree" in the brain, I would
suggest - it processes information on at least three levels
simultaneously (and not just as it may appear to, on just one). The
immediate point here is that this whole area has NOT been covered before
by Kosslyn or anyone else (although there may be odd allusions in some
places). You wouldn't have had all the arguments we had about this
area, if it had been covered.
I addressed the arguments you were actually having at the time, which
were all focussed on statements like "There is an actual "picture tree"
in the brain" -- see above quote from you -- which is a direct,
unambiguous description of the position defended by the group associated
with Kosslyn.
If you are interested in the more general issue of "how the brain
actually processes information", regardless of whether it uses images to
do so or not, then welcome to the club: but THAT question is cognitive
science, and it is not the same as the question of whether the brain
does so using "picture trees".
Re "embodied cognition", you'll just have to look it up - it's a still
growing field, still contentious.
Eh? I am a cognitive psychologist/cognitive scientist, Mike. I asked
you where this growing field is, because I don't see any sign of it. I
would be happy to "look it up" if you would point to it.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
