Re: The fun with the "categorization"

From: MrPat (mrpat_at_blue-g46)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:29:58 GMT

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ingzGHBrNP7AFw13@longley.demon.co.uk...
> Has it occurred to you that it might suffice just to look more closely
> at what the experimenters are actually doing, ie their methods?
> --
> David Longley

Well the extracts from the essay only give a brief overview of the method;
they don't go into details.

If you haven't read the second extract (quote) from the essay about
unconcious thought have a look, it is a short quote: how come people may not
be consciously able to solve the triad of words, but they can state whether
it is soluble or not. It would appear that this is only possible because
they are dealing with the semantics of the problem at some other level than
concsious thought and this is how they know the problem is soluble or not.
Otherwise explain how you think they know.

I'm open to learn more about this and your viewpoint, if you aware of the
details of the method in this experiment or similar priming type experiments
where the presence of unconcious 'processes' are infered by the
experimenters, how would you criticize them? Please don't lauch into a
generalised statement about intensional language and lack of control of
variables using language that is too technical for me. See if you can start
with simple primitive concepts that I understand and build on from there-I'm
not an expert.

It maybe that to do that is too onerous for you to attempt, but it would
help me to further understand these type of experiments and your viewpoint.