JennaW Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I'm still looking at the perception/conceptualization aspects of both my field and Rand's philosophy, and how they are convergent, divergent, etc. I know MSK mentioned that the parts on concept-formation needs to be fleshed out, and I have independently come to the same conclusion.So I'd like to open a thread where anyone who has read new research on cognition to contribute what they find out, and to invite MSK to share how he would flesh this out; I will also be sharing as soon as I've thought it out. For starters though, I've found that current research supports:1. The "similarity" between objects are considered in order for them to be conceptualized.2. Categories are learned first before similarity comparisons happen.3. Essentialism -- an object's essence determines its identity-- is inaccurate because not all categories provide identity. Basic-level categories are defined in this way, not all categories. 4. Concepts tend to arise in systems, not individually; as well as there being emergent properties abour predicates not known at a "lower level". Therefore, the reductionistic view of concept theory-- that complex predicates are made up of or decomposed to smaller ones-- is rejected by current research.5. The eye engages in some form of interpretation.6. Beliefs about what is being perceived affects what is perceived, even in 14-month-olds.7. The disctinction between perceptual and conceptual properties is tenuous (not clearly delineated). 8. Inductive inference depends on cultural and linguistic convention.9. Similarity-based approach (where people discriminate between objects based on likeness) provides the most well-specified models and phenomena.10. But the authors always conclude that there are a plurality of procedures and mechanisms that people use to make concepts or inductions.11. Mental representations are neurally plausible, semantically rich, flexible, and meaningfully symbolic. Representational knowledge is based on dynamic binding of relational roles, fillers, role-filler bindings, and composition into complete propositions.From The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. Holyoak and Morrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now