The argument about the nature of thought is hundreds of years old, for example, the British associationists asserted that sense data (i.e., mental images) was what was associated. The realization that one could engage in "imageless thought" in the late 19th and early 20th century raised doubts about all thought being in images. It's in the 1960s and 1970 that the debate about the nature of thought heated up -- that is, did mental imagery exist or was all thought fundamentally abstract. People like Shepard, Pavio, Kosslyn and others believed that mental images had "psychological reality" (I belong to this camp as shown in my doctoral dissertation that examined whether 2D and 3D mental representations used in spatial problem solving affected responses differently) and Kosslyn has continued to argue this position, notably pointing out that when one engages in visual mental imagery, the visual processing areas of the brain are activated.
However, Pylyshyn, Fodor, and others have argued that anything that can be represented in mental images can also be represented in an abstract code. In a computer, it is binary code that defines an "object". In the mind, it has to be the underlying neurophysiological activity which has to be represented in electrochemical patterns. This abstract view of mind is one that Chomsky and other linguists support because, in part, their theory of language requires the fundamental nature of language (e.g., syntax) to be abstract. If one posits that language knowledge (syntax) is genetically based, then that knowledge has to be in abstract form as it converts from the DNA representation to structures and processes in the nervous system. John Anderson wrote a key paper in Psych Review circa 1979 that argued that at this point in time there was no way to determine which position is correct. Perhaps the experience of mental imagery is an "epiphenomenal by-product of more fundamental abstract processing in the nervous system". Or maybe one needs visual mental imagery to deal with geometric problems in the real world which may be why 2D and 3D mental images of the same information doesn't produce the same responses. The anti-imagery folks can argue that their position is more parsimonious (all thought is represented in one format and sensory representations are irrelevant) but it is likely that it will be a while before a critical study is done that can settle this issue. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --------------------------------- Original Message ---------------------- On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:12:23 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: Hi There was a nice study a number of years ago showing that one could "see" mental rotation operations in the brains of monkeys performing a mental rotation task. Paivio and others have long argued that there are isomorphic brain processes associated with certain types of mental operations (e.g., imagery). It should not be surprising from such a perspective to find that increasingly precise imaging of the brain allows for interpretation of the activity. A humunculous is not necessary, of course, if it is simply the brain processes that give rise to the experience and allows for yes-no judgments on tasks like Shepard's mental rotation task. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 25-Sep-11 9:36:22 AM >>> The mass media is picking up a on research article published in "Current Biology" which claims that a neuroscience research group was able to reconstruct "video mental images" from brain activity. One popular media account is provided by ABC (US) news and can be accessed here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442 The research was conducted in Jack Gallant's lab at UC-Berkeley and here is media release put out by the university: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ Here is link to Gallant's lab's website where more info can be obtained; see: https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 If replicable, this line of research may be turn out to be very interesting (see Roger Shepard's American Psychologist's article "The Mental Image" where he discusses a hypothetical mechanism that allows one to "see" the mental images in another person's mind). But it leaves unanswered the question of who/what in the brain is watching the mental videos. ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=12948 or send a blank email to leave-12948-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
