Mike,
Richard is not being difficult. He is trying to ascertain the basis for
your beliefs (and get pointers to it). Only from this e-mail did *I* ascertain
that you believe that you had made up "psychosemiotics". Previously, it looked
to me as if you thought you were pointing at established science -- and in that
context, Richard's questions were more than reasonable.
Further, your statement that "Psychosemiotics, first off, does NOT EXIST -
so how cognitive science could already cover it is interesting" just shows
*your* ignorance. Just because you believe that you've invented something new
and attached a name to it doesn't mean that it isn't already established
science under a different name. I am quite aware of Richard's background and
can assure you that you are extremely unlikely to be correct when you're trying
to correct him on something in basic cognitive science (especially since you
clearly lack a solid grounding in the field).
So let me repeat the ending of my last e-mail -- We want to welcome new
members to this group but your assumptions and communications style are not
making it easy for us (and hopefully, you can recognize the time and effort
spent bringing you up to speed). A total novice debating an expert may be a
great experience for the novice but does *very* little for the group as a whole
except expend time and attention (since the novice is very unlikely to
contribute to the expert's understanding until he gets up to speed). I would
suggest that it would be most effective if you would adopt a course of LEARNING
what the group believes and how it communicates FIRST and DEBATING LATER (after
you both have something to debate about *and* the ability to effectively
communicate it).
As a first step, why don't you try asking specific questions rather than
being insulting?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] The University of Phoenix Test [was: Why do you think your
AGI design will work?]
> Richard,
>
> What's the point here? You seem to be just being cussed. You're not really
> interested in the structure of the sciences, are you?
>
> Psychosemiotics, first off, does NOT EXIST - so how cognitive science
> could already cover it is interesting. It has been mooted vaguely - in a
> book esp. by Howard Smith:
>
> "psychosemiotics, defined as "the study of how we learn, understand, and use
> the signs of culture" (p. 2), offers a way "to understand cognition by
> examining how humans use signs to make meaning of their everchanging
> physical and cultural environments" (p. 3). "
>
> I posit a more ambitious formulation, - that it should be esp. about how
> the structure of sign systems reflects the structure of the human brain. I
> doubt that you're really into this area, because if you were, you'd have
> noticed that the structure/ division I use (symbols/ graphics/ images) is
> not a recognized division. No, this whole area is still virgin territory -
> if you disagree, point out the research or relevant branch(es) of science.
>
> Vis a vis:
>
> "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."
>
> - I take that more seriously, although I am v. confident of my position.
> Link me to a statement of this position of "the group associated with
> Kosslyn," and I will reply in detail.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [agi] The University of Phoenix Test [was: Why do you think
> your AGI design will work?]
>
>
>> 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/?&;
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
>> 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 02/05/2007 14:16
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> 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/?&;
>
-----
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
