From [Marc Abrams
(2004.06.27.1845)]
[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.27 17:16 EDT)]
Marc, I am only saying that the mechanism proposed for category
recognition is necessarily a part of HPCT. It requires inputs from other
levels, especially but not limited to lower “analogic” levels, and a
primary motivation for postulating it is to provide inputs to higher
“digital” levels. I am not claiming that the HPCT account is correct
or that the kind of mechanism that Bill has proposed for category recognition
is correct, that is, anatomically and physiologically correct.
In other words, I make no claim that this account is the truth about
perception and control. I do claim that it is the truth about the
category-perception proposal and HPCT. If you’re saying that is what I am wrong
about, please clarify.
I agree with your assessment then. Let me add something
here. I am not opposed to the idea of a cognitive hierarchy or network in the
cortex or brain. In fact I like the idea. It’s the specifics, or as they say the devil is in
the details that trouble me about HPCT.
It really begins with the PCT definition of what a
perception is. All sensory modalities do not pass through the same anatomy nor
are they all processed the same way. To suggest that vision, hearing, taste and
smell all go through the same levels of construction is absurd. To also suggest
that imagination is some how ‘different’ than ‘sensory’
data is also, imho, not viable and I believe research bares this out. But that
is not the big issue.
Bill’s hierarchy was done through some serious
introspection. What wasn’t done before or since was collaboration with
sensory research to confirm the categorizations he made.
I strongly
suggest that anyone interested in the hierarchy re-read pgs 78-80 ‘A Look
Ahead’ in B:CP.
He states in B:CP starting on pg. 78
“The next eight chapters are concerned with an
attempt to construct a preliminary model of human behavioral organization as it
would exist after learning is complete
(italics are mine). …The simple structure I offer here appears to have
considerable explanatory power, but it should
be thought of only as a preliminary sketch made for the purpose of suggesting
research that will lead to further development of the model
(italics are mine)…”
So Bill and Rick, when did this ‘preliminary sketch’
get etched in stone? And what research made it happen?
When does ‘learning’ end? When does it begin? And
what does the hierarchy look like before
learning ends or before it begins?
After reading pages 78- 80 you will not wonder why I
question the hierarchy. I question it because Bill, in B:CP wanted it questioned. He also had hoped
that people would actually do some research to see, as he said, to help ‘fine
tune’ it. But instead, over the years the hierarchy turned into dogma as
Bill entrenched himself from his critics and built his bunker. I’m not
making this up kids. Read the book. And I am saying these things because it is
never too late to change and
rectify something as long as you have a breath in your body. But if you think
every criticism is aimed at ‘destroying’ you and your theory you’ll
never come out of your hole.
It’s unfortunate Bill that you can’t
distinguish between ‘friends’ of the theory and personal friends. You
don’t have to be one in order to be the other.
Marc
Considering how often throughout history even intelligent
people have been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people
who are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.
Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.
Thomas Sowell
Don’t argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to
tell the difference.
Anon
I don’t
approve of political jokes. I’ve seen too many of them get elected
Anon
···