> > > Granger has nothing new in cog sci except some of the particular details > in b) -- which you find "uncompelling and oversimplified" -- so what is the > cog sci that you find of value? > ------------------------------ >
Apparently we are using "cog sci" in slightly different ways... I agree that he has nothing new and useful to say (in that paper) in "cog psych" However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of this nature are IMO "cog sci" rather than just "neurosci." At least, that is consistent with how the term "cog sci" was used when I was a cog sci professor, back in the day... Also, as my knowledge of the cog-sci and neurosci literature is not comprehensive, I can't always tell when an idea of Granger's is novel whereas when he's just clearly articulating something that was implicit in the literature beforehand but perhaps not so clearly expressed. Analogously I know Jeff Hawkins has gotten a lot of mileage out of clearly-expressed articulations of ideas that are pretty much common lore among neurobiologists (though Hawkins does have some original suggestions as well...) (To a significant extent, Granger's articles just summarize ideas from other, more fine-grained papers. This does not make them worthless, however. In bio-related fields I find summary-type articles quite valuable, since the original research articles are often highly focused on experimental procedures. It's good to understand what the experimental procedures are but I don't always want to read about them in depth, sometimes I just want to understand the results and their likely interpretations...) -- Ben ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=56337351-4ef3ca
