Re: Religion center in the brain

Kali wrote:
In <4507297a$0$14704$ed362ca5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx said:
[...]
: K: []and why; Chomsky's theory
: was later supported by the discovery of Broca's and Wernicke's
: areas in the brain. Now in 2006 on Usenet a handful of
: behaviorists troll sci.cognitive and object to the
: neuroscientific approach to the study of human behavior. Such is
: the history of scientific progress.
: : : GS: The discovery of Broca's and Wernicke's areas do not show anything more : than that behavioral function is mediated by physiology.

These are uniquely human structures involved in language comprehension and production. Lesioning in part of Broca's area disrupts syntax. Chomsky proposed that 1) humans come uniquely "equipped" with a "language acquisition device" and that 2) language acquisition is more than mimicry for several reasons, but especially because of the observation that children are able to effortlessly acquire the syntax of any language without being taught. It is also well known that there is a critical period for language acquisition, and that in cases like the famous Genie case, the early plasticity relates to the aquisition of syntax (not word learning or the ability to communicate in the same manner that one can train a great ape to do).

All true, but so what? Birds come equipped with a uniquely avian structure that permits them to learn to fly. Pigs do not.


: No behaviorist that : I know of objects to neuroscience, but plenty object to the silly : conceptualization that has been foisted upon it by cognitive "science."
: : K: Neuroscientific investigation has supported several inference
: based theories - Ewald's opponent process theory of color
: vision, for example - and is developing an explanation of what
: happens in the brain when learning occurs, which includes
: "memory encoding/levels of processing" theories from cognitive
: psychology as well as classical and operant conditioning
: theories from behaviorist psychology, which are actually
: complimentary theories.
: : : : GS: And nobody objects to the hypothetico-deductive method when it is : applied at the right time and within a context of conceptual clarity. This : hardly describes mainstream psychology.
: : : : K: All this, despite the naysaying of the
: choleric Usenet few... some of whom have apparently been reduced
: to dishonestly misquoting others or taking their statements out
: of context in an apparent attempt to win a tangential argument.
: Instead of seeking common ground you and Wolf argue semantics.
: : : : GS: I didn't misquote you. Saying that "perception is physiology" is : basically the same as saying that "seeing is in the brain."

Neither did I say "perception is physiology". I said the physiological process of visual perception takes place entirely in the brain. I've said it three times, now. The pathway of visual perception simply doesn't involve the peripheral nervous system or even the spinal cord. And it certainly doesn't happen "in the world" (out in the ethers, somewhere?)

Well, that _is_ a matter of semantics. Sorry about that. From where i sit, things like turning your head "the better to see you" is part of perception; but I'm willing to concede that we can differ on what is and is not included in "perception" so long as we know just what bits of the body and which of their processes we are talking about.

Now given that we agree that there are physiological processes associated with perception, and that some or most or all of them (depending on how we slice "perception") occur in the brain, what does that tell us about perception? More precisely, what does that tell us about "I see a red ball rolling across the lawn"?

To make my point a little clearer, I'll phrase an analogous question:

Given that we agree that there are physical processes associated with earthquakes, and that some or most or all of them occur in the mantle (depending on how we slice "earthquake"), what does that tell us about earthquakes? More precisely, what it does it tell us about "A force 4 earthquake occurred in Outer Remotistan yesterday"?

[...]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Paper by ~MM on distributed self-awareness
    ... Perception is guided by "fluid" concepts, ... Analogy-Making as Perception by Melanie Mitchell. ... and somehow similar to the brain. ... I think she means the foundational substrate of analogy making ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • The Illusion of Music
    ... Music special: The illusion of music ... Hear five of the most striking auditory illusions ... So how does the brain figure out, ... knowing that our perception of a ...
    (rec.music.opera)
  • Re: The Illusion of Music
    ... [Perhaps the ultimate illusion in music, however, is the illusion of ... So how does the brain figure out, ... Nearly everyone who heard the altered recording reported that they ... knowing that our perception of a ...
    (rec.music.opera)
  • Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
    ... >> Tim McNamara wrote: ... >> Not just our biological heritage, but also what we've learned from past ... > experiments in perception carried out by psychologists for the past 150 ... >> Though just as you said mind is activity of the brain, ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated)
  • Re: 50YO neuroscientist learns to do stereopsis for the first time
    ... Glen M. Sizemore wrote: ... Generally I feel that perception is a matter ... responses, and in so doing "could see depth." ... physiology, cortical function, Hubel+Wiesel critical periods, etc, as ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)