Mike Tintner wrote:
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?
Is this ad hominem remark really necessary?
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:
Okay, I'll try to phrase it as carefully as I can: what you suggest as
the subject matter of 'psychosemiotics' does not seem to differ from the
subject matter of cognitive science/psychology, because the latter
already is committed to understanding cognition in all its aspects,
including the rather small aspect of cognition that is the human use of
signs ...... so if you think there is something special about
psychosemiotics that makes it distinct from what cognitive science is
already doing, please specify this.
"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.
All you have done so far is to declare that Semiotics should be used to
shed light on the structure of the human mind, and that this should be
called "psychosemiotics", and that this is virgin territory.
My response to you is the same as the response I would give to someone
who might claim that the human use of restaurants should be used to shed
light on the structure of the human mind, and that this should be called
"psychobistromathics", and that this is virgin territory.
I would ask: why is this different from the general use of all kinds of
human behaviors to study the mind ..... a field that is already named,
and is called cognitive science? Most people would say that it has to
be a good deal more than just a vague declaration of intent, to be a
scientific field with a new name.
(BTW Someone already did employ the human use of restaurants as a way to
shed light on the structure of the human mind, but they were never
inclined to declare it a new field of study, or promise, before they had
even started on it, that it was a virgin territory).
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.
Try any basic undergraduate text on cognitive science, or, if you are in
a hurry, I am sure you will be able to find a statement of their
position somewhere in these, or a thousand other places:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/Imagery
http://www.iep.utm.edu/i/imagery.htm
http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/I/imagery.html
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Foundations.Cognition/0091.html
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn-mehler.htm
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=7103&ttype=2
http://www.gis.net/~tbirch/mi11.htm
http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~jimmyd/summaries/kosslyn1994.html
-----
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
