| Bernard's profileVitrine NarcissiquePhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
September 20 Theory of concepts
“Conceptual semantics – the language of thought – must be distinct from language itself, or we would have nothing to go on when we debate what our words mean.” Pinker, The stuff of thought, p.4
That's where I differ with Pinker too. Two identical utterances can have different meaning whitout having to posit anything else then the neurological history of each words. September 19 Assignation de fonction suite à une lésion - Distinction entre role cognitif et travail cogntif (cognitive working)http://talkingbrains.blogspot.com/2008/01/semantics-and-brain-more-on-atl-as-hub.html Suppose the evidence does pan out that the ATL is critically involved in the semantic deficits found in semantic dementia. Can we conclude that the architecture in the bottom panel of the above figure is correct? Not necessarily, as pointed out in our class by Mary Louise Kean. Just because a single region is implicated in some function, doesn't mean that computationally that region as a whole performs a single computation function. For example, it could be that the ATL contains parallel circuits (convergence zones, say) each performing a similar integrative function but across their own idiosyncratic domains. The parallel circuits in the basal ganglia are a model for this kind of architecture. ----- As far as modularity goes, there is some. You can predict what kind of deficits a person will have based on where an injury occurs. The problem comes from assuming that this is where the processing of that particular thing is done. To use computers as an analogy - I can't help it - if we cut the power cord on a compter it stops adding numbers together. Thus addition takes place in the power cord. September 14 Neil Stephenson on metaphysicshttp://www.reason.com/news/show/36481.html "One could argue that people like Leibniz and the others were able to come up with some good ideas because they weren't afraid to think metaphysically. In those days, metaphysics was still a respected discipline and considered as worthwhile as mathematics. It got the stuffing kicked out of it through much of the 20th century and became a byword for mystical, obscurantist thinking, but in recent decades it has been rehabilitated somewhat. At bottom, anyone who asks questions like "Why does the universe seem to obey laws?" or "Why does mathematics work so well in modeling the physical universe?" is engaging in metaphysics. People like Newton and Leibniz were as well-equipped for this kind of thinking as anyone today, and so it is interesting to read and think about their metaphysics. Seventeenth-century chemistry may have been rudimentary, and of only historical interest today, but 17th-century philosophy is highly developed and still interesting to read." |
|
|
