Memory modulates color appearance

4 Aufrufe
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 12:38:0727.10.06
an
Nature Neuroscience - 9, 1367 - 1368 (2006)
Published online: 15 October 2006; | doi:10.1038/nn1794
Memory modulates color appearance
Thorsten Hansen, Maria Olkkonen, Sebastian Walter & Karl R Gegenfurtner

Abteilung Allgemeine Psychologie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen,
Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394 Giessen, Germany


"We asked human observers to adjust the color of natural fruit objects until
they appeared achromatic. The objects were generally perceived to be gray
when their color was shifted away from the observers' gray point in a
direction opposite to the typical color of the fruit. These results show
that color sensations are not determined by the incoming sensory data alone,
but are significantly modulated by high-level visual memory."


Another example of *real* neuroscience researchers doing real science that
fortifies the theory that memory exists (as scaffold and as a real
phenomena) and engages in various functions of the mind.

One of thouosands of such episodes of real science taking place that
involves constructs from the cognitive neurosciences and neuroscience
proper. Read the whole paper!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

spacer.gif
spacer_green.gif

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 13:57:3027.10.06
an
Skinner predicted this effect in 1953. It was predicated on the notion that
seeing is behavior and was, thus, a function of current stimulating
conditions and a person's history.

"Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45422912$0$12052$8826...@free.teranews.com...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 14:32:3927.10.06
an
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:45424870$0$31258$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

> Skinner predicted this effect in 1953. It was predicated on the notion that
> seeing is behavior and was, thus, a function of current stimulating conditions
> and a person's history.

This is admirably laughable, really. I have a good time reading it. Thanks.
There's this guy, you know, John Edwards, the psychic guy. He is good
at guessing the future of people. He can tell you about what's happening
with your deceased parent, he "talks" with the dead. How does he do that?
Easy! Just select broad enough alegations, so broad in fact *that it can
never be proven to be false*. I bet John Edwards is a disciple of Skinner!

*PB*

Curt Welch

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 14:36:2127.10.06
an
"Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nature Neuroscience - 9, 1367 - 1368 (2006)
> Published online: 15 October 2006; | doi:10.1038/nn1794
> Memory modulates color appearance
> Thorsten Hansen, Maria Ollikainen, Sebastian Walter & Karl R Gegenfurtner

>
> Abteilung Allgemeine Psychologie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen,
> Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394 Giessen, Germany
>
> "We asked human observers to adjust the color of natural fruit objects
> until they appeared achromatic. The objects were generally perceived to
> be gray when their color was shifted away from the observers' gray point
> in a direction opposite to the typical color of the fruit. These results
> show that color sensations are not determined by the incoming sensory
> data alone, but are significantly modulated by high-level visual memory."
>
> Another example of *real* neuroscience researchers doing real science
> that fortifies the theory that memory exists (as scaffold and as a real
> phenomena) and engages in various functions of the mind.

What's so sad Alpha is how completely clueless you are about everything
which has been said here.

Let me explain something simple to you.

If I condition a rat to press a bar by rewarding him with food, why do you
think he presses the bar? It's because he has a memory of the fact that
food comes out when he presses the bar. He wants food, so because he
remembers that bar pressing is how to get it, he presses the bar when he's
hungry so he can get more food. See, I can use the memory word as well.
See how easy it is for me to prove that rats have memory? And for good
measure, I added "want" and "hungry" just to spice it up. So now I've
proven that rats have memory, and wants, and needs and desires. See how
clever I am?

But by calling it memory, and wanting, what does that tell us that we
didn't already know by calling it operant conditioning?

Instead of just proving it has memory and desires, which the bar test
proves, maybe we should try to quantify the rat's memory skills? Maybe we
should try to quantify it's desires?

Ok, lets allow the rat to learn this memory of bar pressing to get food,
and then make it stop producing food. Lets see how long he continues to
press the bar to try and get food. What's going to happen? Will he press
it once, see there is no food, and then stop pressing it because now he has
a memory of the fact the bar doesn't produce food? Maybe he will press it
a few times, and then never try again? But if his behavior his driven by
his memory, shouldn't the first attempt to show him it doesn't work and
then he will never try it again? But he does keep trying it again and
again. It's only the frequency of tries which is becoming longer. Maybe
his memory is fading?

But maybe his memory is 100% fine and it's only his desire that is fading?
Maybe his legs are getting sore and he doesn't feel like pressing the bar
anymore? Maybe he thinks the other rats will laugh at him if he keeps
pressing the bar when no food is coming out, so he stops pressing it to
avoid embarrassment? Maybe his free will is going to make this too hard to
predict what he will do? But, even so, we have already proven he his
memory, and wants, and desires, and that he doesn't like sore legs and that
he's a social animal that is concerned about his self image. So we have
learned a lot by this simple experiment about the rat mind. Now maybe we
should get some funding so we can better explore the difference between
sore leg motivated behaviors and social image motivated behaviors? We
could do this by using a bar which must be pressed with the legs, and a
touch sensitive button that could be pressed with his nose. And we could
test the social issues by raising rats alone, or in groups, and then allow
the rats to do these tests while being watched by their peers or to do the
tests when alone to see how they react. You know, I like this cognitive
approach. Now that we are free to delve into the mind, there's just so
much more we can really understand about rat minds!

Do you see how stupid all this is?

What we know about this experiment is only what we can objectively record
and quantify. We can record the behavior, and see how it changes based on
what has happened in the past. When you do that, you find very precise and
repeatable mathematical relationships between the environment, and the
behavior of the rat. By manipulating the environment, you can shape the
rats behavior in all sorts of fun ways. And you don't at any time, need to
call it memory, or desire, or wanting, or talk in any way about the
implementation of this learning machine that exists inside the rat's head.
We are well aware that all this behavior is being controlled by the rat.
But we can ignore what's happening inside the rat (we have zero data in
these experiments to explain what is happening inside - no brain probes)
and simply document and explain the behavior.

When we study apple behavior, do we talk about what's happening inside the
apple? Do we say, the apple wants to get to the ground? Do we say the
apple is pulling itself to the earth? Do we say the apple computes the
shortest path to the center of the earth and takes that path? When we
notice that things which fall have a terminal velocity do we explain it by
saying the object has a fear of high speeds and puts the breaks on to
prevent it from falling too fast? That would be the cognitive approach to
studying apple behavior.

All the people that "prove" humans have memory, are the people, like you,
that don't understand what you are talking about. Operant conditioning is
what lay-people call memory. Classical conditioning is what lay-people
call memory. Habituation is what lay-people call memory. People that use
the m word in a scientific setting are the people that don't understand
Behaviorism turned memory into a science 50 years ago - or that they are
just talking in lay-people-speak for reasons of simplicity. (because many
educated researchers actually do understand behaviorism and the science of
memory).

To say things like Behaviorism is dead, and everyone is now proving that
humans have memory is to just show how uneducated you are. You don't even
understand what the argument against the cognitive approach is.
Behaviorists know that rats and humans have memory. They just understand
that the different types of effects which lay people call memory, are far
better understood and talked about using the scientific terms of operant
and classical conditioning. Trying to argue that humans have memory and
that we must study it just makes you look uneducated. What do you think
Behaviorism has been studying these past 50 years? It's the behavior you
keep calling memory.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 14:57:3027.10.06
an
"Curt Welch" <cu...@kcwc.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:20061027143721.937$P...@newsreader.com...
>[big cut]

>
> But by calling it memory, and wanting, what does that tell us that we
> didn't already know by calling it operant conditioning?
>

Let me cut to the chase. What is our gain by calling it memory?
We gain a name for a proposed process, the first step to add
attributes and functions to this (so far) extremely abstract conception.
What else will we gain? Just the name of a process? No, we will see that
memory fades over time (sure, that's extinction in rad.beh. lingo). But
cognitive studies find that memory decay (extinction) is related to the
informational content (structure) of the stimuli. Unstructured stimuli
decays faster. That memory also decays with interference with new
stimuli, and that this interference is more severe if the original
stimuli belongs to the same "conceptual category" of the interfering
stimuli. That memory decays less rapidly if the subject is subsequently
recalling semantically associated concepts (because of semantic priming).
That this memory decays much faster if the subject is forcefully inhibiting
those semantically associated terms (negative priming during a task
switching test). We discover that there is a "fast" memory for items
(short-term memory or working memory) and a long-term one that survives
years. We discover that there's a strong correlation between these
memories and the development of new synapses. And the list goes on...

Oh, sure, I forgot, all above mentioned discoveries can only be
tested in humans. The cognitive approach is almost useless in rats!

*PB*

Wolf K

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 15:27:2727.10.06
an

IMO, it's an example of the researcher over-interpreting the data. The
data as given ("their color was shifted away from the observers' gray
point in a direction opposite to the typical color of the fruit") entail
no conclusions requiring "high level memory" etc. In fact, the data
present a puzzle; appealing to "high level memory" doesn't solve the puzzle.

OTOH, the data on the colour of shadows, which are perceived as varying
shades of gray, may be relevant. Shadows are in fact coloured (as
skilled painters know, BTW). Yet we perceive them as grey when
surrounded by lit up objects. Only when we see them isolated from those
objects (eg, by viewing them through a cut-out in card) do we see the
colour.

Also keep in mind that painters know that "black" is a colour, ie, that
to produce the effect of black requires colours to be mixed with the
black paint.

Finally, once you know that shadows are coloured, you may learn to see
the colours. I can see them.

As for "memory existing" - sure it does. Just don't think of it as
"storage of data." If you do, you'll be tempted to think of the brain as
including a tape recorder or DVD or RAM module or something like that.
In fact, you'll likely think that way without being aware that you're
doing so - that's the power of metaphor (as skilled poets know, BTW.)

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 16:17:2627.10.06
an
The key being - the physiology backs up the hypothesis that there is a
"memory" mechansim in brain. I keep on saying this and posting data from
real researchers in this scientific field of neuroscience, but you still
cannot see that the *hypothesis* of memory can be looked at as just that -
an hypothesis.

Please provide at least several thousand referred journal articles that
*refute* my (I put my here because you may claim that memory is not an
hypothesis according to those several thousand other researchers (which it
actually is nevertheless)) hypothesis that there is a memory mechannism in
brain.

We are waiting

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45424870$0$31258$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 16:27:5127.10.06
an

"Curt Welch" <cu...@kcwc.com> wrote in message
news:20061027143721.937$P...@newsreader.com...

It means that there are memory mechanisms in brain. That Glen's take( (and
by extension your take) on the use of the term memory is incorrect .
I have an hypothesis that there are such mechamisms in brain. Explicitly
memory mechanisms. (look up the word memory if you do not know what it
means).
I have posted and can post thousands of research articles that show data
that there is such a mechansism called by most (by far) other researchers:
"memory".

You have posted nothing that shows that such a mechanism does not exist.

>
> Instead of just proving it has memory and desires, which the bar test
> proves, maybe we should try to quantify the rat's memory skills? Maybe we
> should try to quantify it's desires?
>
> Ok, lets allow the rat to learn this memory of bar pressing to get food,
> and then make it stop producing food. Lets see how long he continues to
> press the bar to try and get food. What's going to happen? Will he press
> it once, see there is no food, and then stop pressing it because now he
> has
> a memory of the fact the bar doesn't produce food? Maybe he will press it
> a few times, and then never try again? But if his behavior his driven by
> his memory, shouldn't the first attempt to show him it doesn't work and
> then he will never try it again? But he does keep trying it again and
> again. It's only the frequency of tries which is becoming longer. Maybe
> his memory is fading?
>
> But maybe his memory is 100% fine and it's only his desire that is fading?
> Maybe his legs are getting sore and he doesn't feel like pressing the bar
> anymore? Maybe he thinks the other rats will laugh at him if he keeps

Your example is ludicrous, as rats do not (as far as we know) have the
mental capacity to understand, let alone produce laughter (or have other
mental properties such as embarassment etc.).

Humans do however, and most of us laugh at your inablity to understand that
sciecne produces concepts that can be called hypotheses that can then be
refuted or substantiated (not proven though). You fail to produce data that
refutes the mechansim of memory.


>
> pressing the bar when no food is coming out, so he stops pressing it to
> avoid embarrassment? Maybe his free will is going to make this too hard
> to
> predict what he will do? But, even so, we have already proven he his
> memory, and wants, and desires, and that he doesn't like sore legs and
> that
> he's a social animal that is concerned about his self image. So we have
> learned a lot by this simple experiment about the rat mind. Now maybe we
> should get some funding so we can better explore the difference between
> sore leg motivated behaviors and social image motivated behaviors? We
> could do this by using a bar which must be pressed with the legs, and a
> touch sensitive button that could be pressed with his nose. And we could
> test the social issues by raising rats alone, or in groups, and then allow
> the rats to do these tests while being watched by their peers or to do the
> tests when alone to see how they react. You know, I like this cognitive
> approach. Now that we are free to delve into the mind, there's just so
> much more we can really understand about rat minds!

If you were talking about humans, then those cognitive concepts would be
conducive to understanding such.

They are operational in brain/mind! And that is what counts, not your
inability to understand them.

<snip>

> To say things like Behaviorism is dead, and everyone is now proving that
> humans have memory is to just show how uneducated you are. You don't even
> understand what the argument against the cognitive approach is.

Yes - and it is both laughable and non-operational in most of science -
thank "God".

> Behaviorists know that rats and humans have memory. They just understand
> that the different types of effects which lay people call memory, are far
> better understood and talked about using the scientific terms of operant
> and classical conditioning. Trying to argue that humans have memory and
> that we must study it just makes you look uneducated. What do you think
> Behaviorism has been studying these past 50 years? It's the behavior you
> keep calling memory.

hahaha - it is memory that you keep calling behavior that is being studied
by those non-dead thousands of neuroscientists ! Calling it behavior is like
calling it a process. back to square one.

--

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 16:32:2527.10.06
an

"PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12k4lkt...@corp.supernews.com...

Eloquently and sufficiently-put PB! I admire your ability to cut to chases.
;^) And that is not a "conditioned" response. I have tried to explain why
such concepts in the cognitive sciences matter. They posit and refer to
real happenings in brain/mind that we are trying to explain in sufficient
detail to say that some hypothesis about brain/mind is either suported or
refuted. Calling everything conditioning or behavior lends little to the
production of sophisticated maps of the phenomena(because brain/mind is
sophisticated). And it is this sophistication that will lead to truely
intelligent AI (e.g., simulating such processes and concepts in aother
substrate.)

--

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 16:42:3227.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:45425d62$0$14830$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

Thanks for the heads up Wolf! I don't thnk of it *just* that way because
the mechanisms are entirely different and much more sophisticated. But
there are such mechanisms that represent things that impinge on the various
cortices, including the VC etc. The representations are a storage of sorts;
"storage" defined as an encoding mechanism. In fact, the most accepted
notions of memory explicity state that there is a sensory "store" mechanism
(sensory cortex), a short-term "store" mechanism and a long-term "store"
mechanism (using activation spreads etc). Of course, a tape recorder has an
encoding mechansim as well :^)

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 16:46:1327.10.06
an

"PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12k4k68...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:45424870$0$31258$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
>> Skinner predicted this effect in 1953. It was predicated on the notion
>> that seeing is behavior and was, thus, a function of current stimulating
>> conditions and a person's history.
>
> This is admirably laughable, really. I have a good time reading it.
> Thanks.
> There's this guy, you know, John Edwards, the psychic guy. He is good
> at guessing the future of people. He can tell you about what's happening
> with your deceased parent, he "talks" with the dead. How does he do that?
> Easy! Just select broad enough alegations, so broad in fact *that it can
> never be proven to be false*. I bet John Edwards is a disciple of Skinner!

Skinner's view does, of course, predict the effect, but the case is more
damaging to cognitive "science" than that - the effect was demonstrated more
than 50 years ago:

"It has been shown experimentally that if one who is familiar with playing
cards is very briefly shown a heart printed in black ink, the heart is
sometimes seen as red or a mixture of red and black, perhaps reported as
purple"

BF Skinner

Science and Human Behavior (1953)

The explanation is, of course, that red is strongly correlated with the
heart shape (i.e., it is the sort of situation likely to result in Pavlovian
conditioning) and the shape, then, elicits the response of seeing red even
if the heart is a different color.

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 16:59:0627.10.06
an

"Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45425c79$0$12097$8826...@free.teranews.com...

> The key being - the physiology backs up the hypothesis that there is a
> "memory" mechansim in brain. I keep on saying this and posting data from
> real researchers in this scientific field of neuroscience, but you still
> cannot see that the *hypothesis* of memory can be looked at as just that -
> an hypothesis.

"Memory" is simply a name for a large set of behavioral observations.
Anytime a person's history can be shown to change behavior in the future,
the term memory is applied. In this sense, as I have said several times,
there IS such a thing as "memory" - it is the name of a set of behavioral
observations. What is assumption is that the event in the person' history is
represented and stored. All of the physiology of memory stuff shows is that
the brain is changed by exposure to certain events, and "changed" is not a
synonym for "stored." There is not a single paper that shows that the event
is somehow stored - the papers are also consistent with the notion that the
brain is simply changed such that the animal responds differently to stimuli
than it would have otherwise.

To sum up, "memory" is not hypothetical; it is simply a name for a set of
phenomena. The notions of "storage" and "retrieval" of "representations" is
also not hypothetical - these notions are assumptions.

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 17:21:5927.10.06
an
"Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:45425ffc$0$12097$8826...@free.teranews.com...

Of course, if we were really to cut to the chase, we should be talking
of anything, but behaviorism!

*PB*

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 17:22:4727.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:45425d62$0$14830$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

Actually, there is not much mystery here. The effect is due to Pavlovian
conditioning, just as Skinner pointed out in 1953. Indeed, nobody would
argue that the effect is not due to the fact that fruit has distinctive
shapes and colors. When a picture of a grey banana is presented we tend to
see it as yellow (especially if it is presented tachistoscopically) because
the shape is strongly correlated, and the shape, thus, elicits the response
of "seeing yellow." A yellow patch will not likely make us see banana shapes
because yellow is correlated with so many other shapes. One could collect
data that strongly support that interpretation by establishing the
phenomenon in the laboratory using novel shapes correlated with specific
colors. Of course, for cognitivists, classical conditioning IS implicit
memory and they proceed to apply the standard storage and retrieval
metaphors.

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 17:23:1327.10.06
an
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:45426ffa$0$31281$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

Idiosyncrasies of the human visual system are as old as Helmholtz'
studies, and not something one should see as emerging from Skinner.
And in all these cases the conclusion is the same as mentioned
in the paper:

"These results show that color sensations are not determined by the
incoming sensory data alone, but are significantly modulated by
high-level visual memory."

Let me extract some keywords here: "modulated", "high-level", "memory".
nuff said!

*PB*

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 17:44:1327.10.06
an

"PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12k4u62...@corp.supernews.com...


Extract all you want. Do you really think that I don't understand your
position? Tell me this: How would you produce the phenomenon reported in the
paper in the laboratory and with non-fruit shapes? Would you directly
manipulate the brain? No, you would arrange certain temporal and spatial
conjunctions of shapes and colors - you would arrange a Pavlovian type
procedure. Pavlovian conditioning is, of course, to the cognitivist,
implicit memory. But to say that "memory modulates what we see" says
nothing - it doesn't even tell you how to produce the phenomenon. There are
no physiological facts anywhere that suggest more than that the brain is
changed when we are exposed to particular arrangements, and as a result we
behave differently than we otherwise would have. The notion that the brain
has stored the relevant event as a representation, and that the animal later
retrieves it, is not now, nor has it ever been, a fact, theory, or an
hypothesis. It is an assumption. The facts are: behavior is altered by
exposure to certain arrangements, and changes in the brain are what mediate
this effect. We can say a great many things about how behavior is disrupted
by lesions in various places etc., but there is not a single fact that shows
that events are stored as representations and are later retrieved when the
animal responds appropriately in some situation.

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:02:1427.10.06
an

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:454272fe$0$31260$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

>
> "Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45425c79$0$12097$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> The key being - the physiology backs up the hypothesis that there is a
>> "memory" mechansim in brain. I keep on saying this and posting data from
>> real researchers in this scientific field of neuroscience, but you still
>> cannot see that the *hypothesis* of memory can be looked at as just
>> that - an hypothesis.
>
> "Memory" is simply a name for a large set of behavioral observations.

That is where you are wrong. I see your whole ontology stems from your
adherence to that dogma.


> Anytime a person's history can be shown to change behavior in the future,
> the term memory is applied. In this sense, as I have said several times,
> there IS such a thing as "memory" - it is the name of a set of behavioral
> observations. What is assumption is that the event in the person' history
> is represented and stored. All of the physiology of memory stuff shows is
> that the brain is changed by exposure to certain events, and "changed" is
> not a synonym for "stored."

Represented-by then!!!! The change is represented by the mechanism such and
so. An encoding if you will. Just as we encode other types of things in
Universe, using various transform to our recepts (along the neural pathways)
for example.


> There is not a single paper that shows that the event is somehow stored -
> the papers are also consistent with the notion that the brain is simply
> changed such that the animal responds differently to stimuli than it would
> have otherwise.
>
>
>
> To sum up, "memory" is not hypothetical; it is simply a name for a set of
> phenomena. The notions of "storage" and "retrieval" of "representations"
> is also not hypothetical - these notions are assumptions.

I used an example of *my* saying it is an hypothesis. It is fully formed
and is falsifieable. I was only using it to show how I can use the term in
a valid, coherent way in talking about various cognitive structures of
mind/brain.

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:10:2727.10.06
an

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45427d92$0$31284$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

At least it names a phenomena for which you need to seek a more through
explanation for, in terms of other processes and mechanisms in brain/mind.

> There are no physiological facts anywhere that suggest more than that the
> brain is changed when we are exposed to particular arrangements, and as a
> result we behave differently than we otherwise would have.

But there are plenty of physiological facts that use or refer to the terms
memory etc., in their explanations of what is being measured or seen!!!!!

Get it - researchers use the terms to refer to processes and mechanisms,
and claiming that those are merely behavior or conditioning says next to
nothing about how those mechanisms are constituted.

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:16:3127.10.06
an
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:45427d92$0$31284$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

If one want simply to reproduce the result of that paper (which is a
good thing in itself) one will arrange similar experimental conditions.

But let me ask you sincerely: where do you go from there? What is the
next thing one is supposed to do after having that result confirmed?
What kind of hypotheses one might conceive to further explore this
kind of phenomenon? If you choose to stick with "behavior is altered


by exposure to certain arrangements, and changes in the brain are

what mediate this effect", you just stall any possible progress.
You have reduced the phenomenon to an "easy to utter" explanation,
that fits *all* future results (after all, as you say, Skinner
predicted this in 1953!).

On the other hand, if you hypothesize that this can also happen
with structured stimuli, or with other sensory modalities, or with
linguistic ones, or that this is modulated by priming, or affected
by associated categories, or that this is correlated with informational
content, or that this requires attention, or that this is not influenced
by distractors, etc., etc., you may discover that all this may generalize
into rich and deep "laws of thought". Sure, at this stage this will be
a hypothesis. What do we do with hypotheses? We put them to the test,
we use them to predict novel phenomena and we confirm (or reject) based
on the results of the experiment. Looking at the past 40 years of
cognitive neuroscience, this is what has been done, and this explains
the progress and dissemination of this field. The major advantage of
the cognitive enterprise is that which you criticize: the ability to
create testable conceptualizations that generalize gracefully and
increase our understanding.

*PB*

Alpha

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:21:4227.10.06
an

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45427d92$0$31284$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
<snip>

>. The facts are: behavior is altered by exposure to certain arrangements,
>and changes in the brain are what mediate this effect.

Yet "These


results show that color sensations are not determined by the incoming
sensory data alone, but are significantly modulated by high-level
visual memory."


" is what the actual ressearchers tell us. They are measuring a memory
function. The brains's changes mediating the effect are called something.
In each case and in each experiment, we call mechanisms by some name so we
can refer to them. And when you do that enough, one begins to see a story
emerging about how, cognitively-speaking, brain is doing its thing.

And memory is a theory - my theory and I claim that it is a theory in
science writ large. But whatever it is, theory or assumption, I claim that I
have hundreds or thousands of instances of the concept of memory appearing
when referring to brain mechanisms, which then contribute to a richer and
more detailed understanding of the congnitive functions. The cognitive
approach is much more constructive than the conceptual structure of
behaviorism alone. The constructs serve to elicit further experimentation
and understanding that would not even occur to a rad. beh.

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:29:4127.10.06
an

"Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45427509$0$12062$8826...@free.teranews.com...

>
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:454272fe$0$31260$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
>>
>> "Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:45425c79$0$12097$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>> The key being - the physiology backs up the hypothesis that there is a
>>> "memory" mechansim in brain. I keep on saying this and posting data
>>> from real researchers in this scientific field of neuroscience, but you
>>> still cannot see that the *hypothesis* of memory can be looked at as
>>> just that - an hypothesis.
>>
>> "Memory" is simply a name for a large set of behavioral observations.
>
> That is where you are wrong. I see your whole ontology stems from your
> adherence to that dogma.

Nonsense. In order to publish a paper purporting to examine any kind of
memory, one's definition of memory must be "operational." The way that
"operational" is used by mainstream psychology is, of course, absurd, but
even so, whether or not you say that "memory" is a name for certain
behavioral observations" or say that the memory is "shown" by meeting the
operational criteria (which must be observable - you do know this stuff
right?), the facts remain the same: you don't get to call something
"episodic memory," for example, unless you operationally define it in terms
of observable manipulations of the observable environment (i.e., what is
supposed to go in the Procedure subsection in any paper) and observable
behavior (also supposed to go in the Procedure subsection in any paper).
This is pretty much all that is required in response to your post.

JGCASEY

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:34:1227.10.06
an

On Oct 28, 6:59 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> What is assumption is that the event in the person'
> history is represented and stored. All of the physiology
> of memory stuff shows is that the brain is changed by
> exposure to certain events, and "changed" is not a
> synonym for "stored." There is not a single paper that
> shows that the event is somehow stored - the papers are
> also consistent with the notion that the brain is simply
> changed such that the animal responds differently to
> stimuli than it would have otherwise.
>
>
> To sum up, "memory" is not hypothetical; it is simply
> a name for a set of phenomena. The notions of "storage"
> and "retrieval" of "representations" is also not
> hypothetical - these notions are assumptions.

time input response

0 6 6
1 + 6
2 7 7
3 + 13

We say the calculator has remembered the input 6 at time 0
and the input 7 at time 2 in order to make the response 13
predictable from the input + at time 3.

You say the calculator's history "changed the calculator"
so it now responds with 13 to the input + whereas before
it gave a different response.

If you look inside the calculator you will indeed see it
has changed its state since the last input + at time 1.

If you could look inside the calculator you could predict
what input + would do without reference to its memory
of some past input, all you would need is its current
state.

Its behavior at time n+1 is determined fully by its
current state at time n.

Now we might say the calculator "stored" the input 6 and
it "stored" the input 7. The input + causes it to "retrieve"
the 6 and the 7 to respond with 13.

We might say the bit patterns can "represent" a six, a
seven or any other number of a particular type.

If I wanted to explain how a calculator adds numbers
should I just say it is "changed" by its history or
would it be easier to understand if I used all those
other *working assumptions* like storage and retrieval
to explain the mechanisms and the word "representation"
to show what form the "change" takes within the machine?

What kind of explanation is it to say "the machine has
been changed by its history"? To build the machine you
need to know in what way it has been changed and how
those changes interact to produce the desired response.
Words such as storage, retrieval and representation
might be very clear understandable ways to label those
mechanisms that would enable someone else to build
the machine.

--
JC

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 18:44:5927.10.06
an
>If one want simply to reproduce the result of that paper (which is a
> good thing in itself) one will arrange similar experimental conditions.

What I said was: "How would you produce the phenomenon reported in the paper
in the laboratory and with non-fruit shapes?" Now, would you care to answer
the question I asked?


Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 19:01:3327.10.06
an

"Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4542799a$0$12112$8826...@free.teranews.com...

>
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45427d92$0$31284$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
> <snip>
>
>>. The facts are: behavior is altered by exposure to certain arrangements,
>>and changes in the brain are what mediate this effect.
>
> Yet "These
> results show that color sensations are not determined by the incoming
> sensory data alone, but are significantly modulated by high-level
> visual memory."
>
>
> " is what the actual ressearchers tell us. They are measuring a memory
> function. The brains's changes mediating the effect are called something.

Only by the most bizarre definition of "measurement." In psychological
experiments, measurable manipulations of the environment are performed, and
some aspect of behavior is measured. Period. Even where physiological
measurements are made, the judgment as to whether or not a particular type
of memory is what is being "observed" depends, not on what is being measured
physiologically, but on whether or not the environmental and behavioral
criteria are met. That pretty much is all that needs to be commented on.
Your posts are all concatenating conceptual catastrophes.

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 19:37:2027.10.06
an

"JGCASEY" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1161988452.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Oh golly! You have missed the point again. At least there is something that
you have raised to an art form. The issue is not, as I have repeatedly told
you, whether or not one needs to look inside (one does), or design mechanism
(one does). The issue is whether or not one's preconceptions about what will
be found inside, or what MUST be in a design, are, to put it in terms that
you might understand, "good," or "bad."

Wolf K

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 20:14:4027.10.06
an
Alpha wrote:
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[...]

>> There are no physiological facts anywhere that suggest more than that the
>> brain is changed when we are exposed to particular arrangements, and as a
>> result we behave differently than we otherwise would have.
>
> But there are plenty of physiological facts that use or refer to the terms
> memory etc., in their explanations of what is being measured or seen!!!!!
>
> Get it - researchers use the terms to refer to processes and mechanisms,
> and claiming that those are merely behavior or conditioning says next to
> nothing about how those mechanisms are constituted.
[...]

If these process and mechanisms exist, then it should be possible to
manipulate memory directly. Ie, it should be possible to "implant"
memories by directly modifying neural pathways, for example. IOW, you
should be able to produce behaviours of the kind usually produced by
conditioning by doing something to the brain at some level. It may be
possible to do this; I know of no successful attempts so far, but that
won't stop anyone from trying. But no amount of talk about "higher
memory modulating vision" provides even a clue of how to go about doing it.

One can implant memories, with frightening ease, by using behavioural
techniques, such as "suggestion", (the partial modelling of the desired
response, a thoroughly behaviourist technique, and one that works so
well that one must guard against its inadvertent use when conducting
experiments.)

HTH

JGCASEY

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 20:32:5127.10.06
an

On Oct 28, 9:37 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

> Oh golly! You have missed the point again. At least there


> is something that you have raised to an art form. The issue
> is not, as I have repeatedly told you, whether or not one
> needs to look inside (one does), or design mechanism (one
> does). The issue is whether or not one's preconceptions
> about what will be found inside, or what MUST be in a
> design, are, to put it in terms that you might understand,
> "good," or "bad."

I often feel people miss my point as well :)


As far as I know I have no preconceptions about what will
be found in a biological brain. I only know that terms like
storage, retrieval and representations have proved useful
in describing how a computer program works.


Rather than think in terms of good or bad I think in terms
of what works. Explanations that work that is.


Maybe if the source code to Sniffy was made available we
wouldn't find the need to use terms like storage, retrieval
and representation to explain how it works?


If Sniffy behaves like a real rat in a Skinner box then
the behavioral side has been realised now let's see what
was required to produce it? How is operant conditioning
implemented in Sniffy?


--
JC

Michael Olea

ungelesen,
27.10.2006, 23:02:4627.10.06
an
JGCASEY wrote:

> As far as I know I have no preconceptions about what will
> be found in a biological brain.

"I can't imagine the brain using a DCEL map?"

JGCASEY

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 00:51:4428.10.06
an

That was a preconception about what will *not* be found
in a biological brain rather than what will be found :)

Now doubt you are going to prove me wrong? Don't tell
me it's full of iterators as well!

I guess I have some preconceptions, after all I have read
books on the brain written for the curious layman but
what I meant was I am not going to pretend I really know
how the brain does it thing. I will stick to simple machines.


--
John

Curt Welch

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 02:37:0128.10.06
an
Wolf K <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote:

> Finally, once you know that shadows are coloured, you may learn to see
> the colours. I can see them.

That reminds me of something my mom explained about 40 years ago to me.
She had formally studied painting in school and was explaining how you
would paint something like a car seat (we were in the car at the time). It
was a red seat, but she said you would paint white here to show the
reflection. But I couldn't see it! All I saw as a red seat. I couldn't
grasp why she was saying she would use white to paint a red seat.

But in time, looking at paintings (or photographs) you learn to see what's
really there (the white reflections) instead of just the red seat. But it
does actually take a lot of training to see the actual 2D image there
instead of seeing the 3D object so that you can paint the 2D view that you
are actually looking at.

I can't see the colors correctly, but I know if I spent a lot of time
practicing painting and mixing colors, I would start to see them. It's a
learned behavior. It the behavior of picking the right color to make the
painting match what you are seeing. Without practicing that behavior, you
don't learn it - just like learning to ride a bike. And as we learn the
external behavior of picking and mixing the right colors, we are training
our perception system at the same time.

N

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 10:38:1528.10.06
an
Alpha wrote:-

>"We asked human observers to adjust the color of natural fruit objects until
>they appeared achromatic. The objects were generally perceived to be gray
>when their color was shifted away from the observers' gray point in a
>direction opposite to the typical color of the fruit. These results show
>that color sensations are not determined by the incoming sensory data alone,
>but are significantly modulated by high-level visual memory."

compensatory adjustment of color.I wouldnt have been
suprised if the 'opposite direction' was more in the direction
of the colour of the fruit being unripe or bad, more so than
towards a hue in the opposite on the color wheel tho,

Mr Sizemore wrote:-


>Skinner's view does, of course, predict the effect, but the case is more
>damaging to cognitive "science" than that - the effect was demonstrated more
>than 50 years ago:

>"It has been shown experimentally that if one who is familiar with playing
>cards is very briefly shown a heart printed in black ink, the heart is
>sometimes seen as red or a mixture of red and black, perhaps reported as
>purple"

I wonder if the experiment was done today if the results would
be any different? it made me think of the printing sheen you
used to get on some inks, purple or green, and the color of
the light used during the experiments? I'm pretty sure the
differences are negligable tho, you're still associating a
shape with content, if we didn't do that we'd go bumping into
things and have to re-learn how to read every fleeting second.
I know there are literally hundreds of colors black in history
of industry, they're all slightly colored.

Wolf wrote:-


>IMO, it's an example of the researcher over-interpreting the data. The
>data as given ("their color was shifted away from the observers' gray
>point in a direction opposite to the typical color of the fruit") entail
>no conclusions requiring "high level memory" etc. In fact, the data
>present a puzzle; appealing to "high level memory" doesn't solve the puzzle.

>OTOH, the data on the colour of shadows, which are perceived as varying
>shades of gray, may be relevant. Shadows are in fact coloured (as
>skilled painters know, BTW). Yet we perceive them as grey when
>surrounded by lit up objects. Only when we see them isolated from those
>objects (eg, by viewing them through a cut-out in card) do we see the
>colour.


>Also keep in mind that painters know that "black" is a colour, ie, that
>to produce the effect of black requires colours to be mixed with the
>black paint.

There isn't exactly black or white either, only absence of
light, or absence of objects. I was wounded in a student
brawl once elbowed in the eye and realized afterwards I
was blind to all in the lower half of the visual field. It was
irritating because it was dark or'black' in daylight, and
mid grey-green in low light, and bright when I put out the
light. (Fortunately it wasn't a detached retina only disturbed
cells, it took over 4 months to get better)

>Finally, once you know that shadows are coloured, you may learn to see
>the colours. I can see them.

yep its a knack of turning the monochrome off, or increasing
saturation in certain areas for me,
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=lola+jawlensky
(shall I sort through some arts papers, see what the masters
say about it)

>As for "memory existing" - sure it does. Just don't think of it as
>"storage of data." If you do, you'll be tempted to think of the brain as
>including a tape recorder or DVD or RAM module or something like that.
>In fact, you'll likely think that way without being aware that you're
>doing so - that's the power of metaphor (as skilled poets know, BTW.)

I don't know if this makes any difference, but this reminded me
of some differences between slow reading and fast.

Glen wrote:-


>Actually, there is not much mystery here. The effect is due to Pavlovian
>conditioning, just as Skinner pointed out in 1953. Indeed, nobody would
>argue that the effect is not due to the fact that fruit has distinctive
>shapes and colors. When a picture of a grey banana is presented we tend to
>see it as yellow (especially if it is presented tachistoscopically) because
>the shape is strongly correlated, and the shape, thus, elicits the response
>of "seeing yellow." A yellow patch will not likely make us see banana shapes
>because yellow is correlated with so many other shapes. One could collect
>data that strongly support that interpretation by establishing the
>phenomenon in the laboratory using novel shapes correlated with specific
>colors. Of course, for cognitivists, classical conditioning IS implicit
>memory and they proceed to apply the standard storage and retrieval
>metaphors.

Design briefs frequently request graphics to reflect the
qualities of a descriptive adjective, without referring
to specific objects. For instance, 'splash, lump, sharp,
judder, smooth, seering, concise' maybe to go on to
invent a couple more, eg. wrapfrackle, thatchwelk or
pibbleschnibe,

I don't know, perhaps its only a matter of deciding what
something is not by deduction amongst the billions of
experiences we've had, rather than precisely pattern
matching and labelling our perceptions according to what
has already been pre-learned or memorized.

N

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 10:53:1228.10.06
an
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:45428bcf$0$31257$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

I would set up an experiment where different simuli (variations along
some dimensions) are presented while we measure behavioral responses.
Is that what you wanted to hear?

Well, this is not news, this is what *almost all* neurocognitive experiments
also do. They measure behavioral responses (occasionally they also grab
information from fMRI or PET scans, but these are accessory).
All these things are data.

Now that I've satisfied your curiosity, would you satisfy mine?
Answer the question of my last post, which you've conveniently forgotten:

Where do you go from there? What is the next thing one is


supposed to do after having that result confirmed?

What is the next *scientific action* to be taken after having this result?

*PB*

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 12:07:1028.10.06
an
>If one want simply to reproduce the result of that paper (which is a
>> good thing in itself) one will arrange similar experimental conditions.
>
> What I said was: "How would you produce the phenomenon reported in the
> paper in the laboratory and with non-fruit shapes?" Now, would you care to
> answer the question I asked?

PB: I would set up an experiment where different simuli (variations along


some dimensions) are presented while we measure behavioral responses.
Is that what you wanted to hear?

GS: Are you retarded or something? I'm asking you to PRODUCE the phenomenon
in the laboratory WITH SHAPES THE PERSON OR ANIMAL HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
You think that it is an accident that they used grey pictures in the shape
of fruit for Christ's sake?


PB: Well, this is not news, this is what *almost all* neurocognitive

experiments
also do. They measure behavioral responses (occasionally they also grab
information from fMRI or PET scans, but these are accessory).
All these things are data.

GS: You're right that it isn't news, moron. And it isn't what I asked you to
talk about.


PB: Now that I've satisfied your curiosity, would you satisfy mine?

GS: I was never curious, you buffoon. The question, again, is not whether or
not one manipulates he environment and measures behavior in psychological
experiments, the issue is: Can you tell me how to produce the phenomenon in
a subject that doesn't come to the laboratory "with the phenomenon" already.
Do you get it now?

PB: Answer the question of my last post, which you've conveniently
forgotten:

Where do you go from there? What is the next thing one is
supposed to do after having that result confirmed?

What is the next *scientific action* to be taken after having this result?

GS: You ask this question after you read Olea's post? What is your major
malfunction?

"PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:12k6rmo...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com>


PeskyBee

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 12:40:3328.10.06
an
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:4543802e$0$31245$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

> >If one want simply to reproduce the result of that paper (which is a
>>> good thing in itself) one will arrange similar experimental conditions.
>>
>> What I said was: "How would you produce the phenomenon reported in the paper in
>> the laboratory and with non-fruit shapes?" Now, would you care to answer the
>> question I asked?
>
> PB: I would set up an experiment where different simuli (variations along
> some dimensions) are presented while we measure behavioral responses.
> Is that what you wanted to hear?
>
> GS: Are you retarded or something? I'm asking you to PRODUCE the phenomenon in
> the laboratory WITH SHAPES THE PERSON OR ANIMAL HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE. You think
> that it is an accident that they used grey pictures in the shape of fruit for
> Christ's sake?

Behaviorists lose their temper so easily, I wonder if that's because
they're being forgotten (being this newsgroup one of the last stances
where they can still utter their dogmas).

Here it is: the phenomenon may not appear with shapes not seen before.
Is that what you wanted to hear? This seems so obvious, that it didn't
occur to me to answer it before. Well, now that you're satisfied (after
all, this fits into your dogma, although as I said elsewhere, anything
will fit, being this just a consequence of what has been throughly
said in 1953!), can you explain HOW this can be used AGAINST any theory
of perception that cognitive neuroscientists endorse? Can you tell us
if you believe that Semir Zeki, Zenon Pylyshyn, Stephen Kosslyn and
Shimon Edelman will blush trying to explain all this?

>
> PB: Well, this is not news, this is what *almost all* neurocognitive experiments
> also do. They measure behavioral responses (occasionally they also grab
> information from fMRI or PET scans, but these are accessory).
> All these things are data.
>
>
>
> GS: You're right that it isn't news, moron. And it isn't what I asked you to
> talk about.
>
>
> PB: Now that I've satisfied your curiosity, would you satisfy mine?
>
>
>
> GS: I was never curious, you buffoon. The question, again, is not whether or not
> one manipulates he environment and measures behavior in psychological
> experiments, the issue is: Can you tell me how to produce the phenomenon in a
> subject that doesn't come to the laboratory "with the phenomenon" already. Do
> you get it now?

And do you get that we're not discussing which theory is right here,
but the scientific aspect of the theory? Or do you insanely think that
your 1953 "explanation" of the phenomenon exhausted the subject?

The easiest thing in the world is to concoct theories that are "always
right". Can you tell me what is really hard in science?

>
> PB: Answer the question of my last post, which you've conveniently forgotten:
>
> Where do you go from there? What is the next thing one is
> supposed to do after having that result confirmed?
>
> What is the next *scientific action* to be taken after having this result?
>
> GS: You ask this question after you read Olea's post? What is your major
> malfunction?

I wonder why you're afraid of telling us all what is the next step
one should take after that study. Perhaps because, to behaviorists,
there's no next step. Next steps are given by cognitive neuroscientists.
Behaviorists are happy to live with 1953 predictions.

*PB*

PeskyBee

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 12:42:0528.10.06
an
Excellent post, JGCASEY!

*PB*

"JGCASEY" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> escreveu na mensagem
news:1161988452.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Alpha

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 12:54:5628.10.06
an

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45428839$0$31261$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

>
> "Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45427509$0$12062$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:454272fe$0$31260$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
>>>
>>> "Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45425c79$0$12097$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>>> The key being - the physiology backs up the hypothesis that there is a
>>>> "memory" mechansim in brain. I keep on saying this and posting data
>>>> from real researchers in this scientific field of neuroscience, but you
>>>> still cannot see that the *hypothesis* of memory can be looked at as
>>>> just that - an hypothesis.
>>>
>>> "Memory" is simply a name for a large set of behavioral observations.
>>
>> That is where you are wrong. I see your whole ontology stems from your
>> adherence to that dogma.
>
If you actually responded to my post I would respond to yours. But the
drivel you posted below on writing papers has nothing to do with whether
your ontology stems from adherence to the beh. dogma.


> Nonsense. In order to publish a paper purporting to examine any kind of
> memory, one's definition of memory must be "operational." The way that
> "operational" is used by mainstream psychology is, of course, absurd, but
> even so, whether or not you say that "memory" is a name for certain
> behavioral observations" or say that the memory is "shown" by meeting the
> operational criteria (which must be observable - you do know this stuff
> right?), the facts remain the same: you don't get to call something
> "episodic memory," for example, unless you operationally define it in
> terms of observable manipulations of the observable environment (i.e.,
> what is supposed to go in the Procedure subsection in any paper) and
> observable behavior (also supposed to go in the Procedure subsection in
> any paper). This is pretty much all that is required in response to your
> post.

Be that (my opening statement) as it may, there are several hundred papers
that define memory in terms of observable manipulations of the brain (the
observable environment). The problem here is one of failure, on your part,
to recognize the meaning of the term memory as it is used by real
researchers. Your contunual nonsensical postings that try and disparage the
use of such terminology only shows your ignorance of what real researchers
like Kandel are doing.

Alpha

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 13:23:4228.10.06
an

"PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12k7202...@corp.supernews.com...

Yes; they drag a lot of baggage with them to the present however. ;^)

AFA next steps, one of them is that one has to elicit internal mechanisms
and processes which are then named (so we don't have to talk exclusively in
terms of physiology, but in abstractions of that physiology, or
simlifications of such, or merely replacing a hundred words with one that
refers to, or stands in for, those hundred words). The naming provides neat
constructs that can be combined with other in a meaningful way* and
examined and explained using other constructs. All this cognitive activity
(which is what it is) leads to buttressing a theory or refuting a theory and
the ensuing debates.

* meaningful way: that is, said constructs must be coherent,
point_to/refer_to data/experimental results (just as the long-winded
versions do), and be logically consistent with other constructs that purport
to describe similar aspects of the problem.

>
> *PB*
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:12k6rmo...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>
>

--

Alpha

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 13:27:5728.10.06
an

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45428fb3$0$31275$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...

>
> "Alpha" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4542799a$0$12112$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:45427d92$0$31284$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
>> <snip>
>>
>>>. The facts are: behavior is altered by exposure to certain arrangements,
>>>and changes in the brain are what mediate this effect.
>>
>> Yet "These
>> results show that color sensations are not determined by the incoming
>> sensory data alone, but are significantly modulated by high-level
>> visual memory."
>>
>>
>> " is what the actual ressearchers tell us. They are measuring a memory
>> function. The brains's changes mediating the effect are called something.
>
> Only by the most bizarre definition of "measurement."

Oh right - that's right - thousands of reserchers are wrong in understanding
*what* they are measuring and everyone is using the term to refer to
something that does not exist (or should be called something different to
please a few backward-looking behaviorists. What a crock (and a good
laugh ).

>In psychological experiments, measurable manipulations of the environment
>are performed, and some aspect of behavior is measured. Period. Even where
>physiological measurements are made, the judgment as to whether or not a
>particular type of memory is what is being "observed" depends, not on what
>is being measured physiologically, but on whether or not the environmental
>and behavioral criteria are met.

The judgement depends on what the researcher has set up experimentally to
measure/observe. Period.

>That pretty much is all that needs to be commented on. Your posts are all
>concatenating conceptual catastrophes.

That you do not understand the issues conditions you to so respond.

Alpha

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 13:53:5728.10.06
an

"JGCASEY" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1161988452.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

> Words such as storage, retrieval and representation
> might be very clear understandable ways to label those
> mechanisms that would enable someone else to build
> the machine.

Bravo!

Alpha

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 14:08:4828.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:4542a0b2$0$14841$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

> Alpha wrote:
>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> There are no physiological facts anywhere that suggest more than that
>>> the brain is changed when we are exposed to particular arrangements, and
>>> as a result we behave differently than we otherwise would have.
>>
>> But there are plenty of physiological facts that use or refer to the
>> terms memory etc., in their explanations of what is being measured or
>> seen!!!!!
>>
>> Get it - researchers use the terms to refer to processes and mechanisms,
>> and claiming that those are merely behavior or conditioning says next to
>> nothing about how those mechanisms are constituted.
> [...]
>
> If these process and mechanisms exist, then it should be possible to
> manipulate memory directly. Ie, it should be possible to "implant"
> memories by directly modifying neural pathways, for example. IOW, you
> should be able to produce behaviours of the kind usually produced by
> conditioning by doing something to the brain at some level.

Sure it is - lesions produce memory deficits (whic result in behavioral
changes) for example, or strange confabulations of memories. One can for
examplke, change the monoaminergic function (based on contents of monoamines
in the hippocampus) and the result is impaired memory function or enhanced
memory function, depending on what you do to the concentration.

I know Wolf, those are gross examples working at the level of whole memory
function. But here is a paper that gives clues as to what might be
manipulated to do just what you are saying (the level of granularity of
memory storage and retreival is important to the explanation of the
mechansim involved (that needs to be manipulated; i.e., there are neuron and
neuronal-group-level explanations of memory and there are also regional
explanations (involving several neuronal groups)). Nature Neuroscience 5,
8 - 9 (2002) Neural correlates of human memory, Paul Fletcher & Lorraine
Tyler

> It may be possible to do this; I know of no successful attempts so far,
> but that won't stop anyone from trying. But no amount of talk about
> "higher memory modulating vision" provides even a clue of how to go about
> doing it.

The various papers dealing with such neural correlates do provide clues -
see the paper ref'd above.

>
> One can implant memories, with frightening ease, by using behavioural
> techniques, such as "suggestion", (the partial modelling of the desired
> response, a thoroughly behaviourist technique, and one that works so well
> that one must guard against its inadvertent use when conducting
> experiments.)
>
> HTH

--

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
28.10.2006, 14:17:3428.10.06
an

"PeskyBee" <pesk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12k7202...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:4543802e$0$31245$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
>> >If one want simply to reproduce the result of that paper (which is a
>>>> good thing in itself) one will arrange similar experimental conditions.
>>>
>>> What I said was: "How would you produce the phenomenon reported in the
>>> paper in the laboratory and with non-fruit shapes?" Now, would you care
>>> to answer the question I asked?
>>
>> PB: I would set up an experiment where different simuli (variations along
>> some dimensions) are presented while we measure behavioral responses.
>> Is that what you wanted to hear?
>>
>> GS: Are you retarded or something? I'm asking you to PRODUCE the
>> phenomenon in the laboratory WITH SHAPES THE PERSON OR ANIMAL HAS NEVER
>> SEEN BEFORE. You think that it is an accident that they used grey
>> pictures in the shape of fruit for Christ's sake?
>
> Behaviorists lose their temper so easily, I wonder if that's because
> they're being forgotten (being this newsgroup one of the last stances
> where they can still utter their dogmas).
>
> Here it is: the phenomenon may not appear with shapes not seen before.
> Is that what you wanted to hear?

I'M ASKING YOU HOW TO PRODUCE THE PHENOMENON STARTING WITH STIMULUS SHAPES
THE PERSON OR NON-HUMAN ANIMAL HAS NEVER SEEN. DO YOU GET IT NOW MORON?

Die Nachricht wurde gelöscht

Curt Welch

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 01:32:0629.10.06
an
"N" <mimo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Glen Sizemore wrote:-

> >"It has been shown experimentally that if one who is familiar with
> >playing cards is very briefly shown a heart printed in black ink, the
> >heart is sometimes seen as red or a mixture of red and black, perhaps
> >reported as purple"
>
> only say outloud the colour you CAN see
> (worst graphics in the world - but try to get
> them correct every time)
>
> http://www.geocities.com/nickielson/Words/name_color.WMV
>
> N.

You mean say the color and not the word right?

I can't even do it. It's running too fast for me to be able to overcome
the dominance of the written word. I suspect with enough practice I'd get
better, but it's hard. The colors are also odd enough that I have trouble
naming some of them even when I pause the video.

It's not just the fact that the written word is overpowering the color, but
the simple fact that there are two color concepts on the screen at the same
time and no easy way to select one over the other in the mind. You can't
look at the color, without the eye seeing the word at the same time, so you
brain is trying to activate two competing color concepts at the same time
and trying to make the brain pick one or the other is hard.

What you would probably need to do, is create a practice set which had
colored words that didn't name colors. Practice switching between reading
the colors and reading the words with that set. The more you practice at
that task, the better you would probably become at being able to control
which you were doing so that in the real task, you could read the colors
and ignore the words, or read the words and ignore the colors as you
desire.

JGCASEY

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 01:11:1029.10.06
an

On Oct 29, 4:32 pm, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:


> "N" <mimo_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Glen Sizemore wrote:-
> > >"It has been shown experimentally that if one who is familiar with
> > >playing cards is very briefly shown a heart printed in black ink, the
> > >heart is sometimes seen as red or a mixture of red and black, perhaps
> > >reported as purple"
>
> > only say outloud the colour you CAN see
> > (worst graphics in the world - but try to get
> > them correct every time)
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/nickielson/Words/name_color.WMV
>

> > N.You mean say the color and not the word right?


>
> I can't even do it. It's running too fast for me to be able to overcome
> the dominance of the written word. I suspect with enough practice I'd get
> better, but it's hard. The colors are also odd enough that I have trouble
> naming some of them even when I pause the video.
>
> It's not just the fact that the written word is overpowering the color, but
> the simple fact that there are two color concepts on the screen at the same
> time and no easy way to select one over the other in the mind. You can't
> look at the color, without the eye seeing the word at the same time, so you
> brain is trying to activate two competing color concepts at the same time
> and trying to make the brain pick one or the other is hard.
>
> What you would probably need to do, is create a practice set which had
> colored words that didn't name colors. Practice switching between reading
> the colors and reading the words with that set. The more you practice at
> that task, the better you would probably become at being able to control
> which you were doing so that in the real task, you could read the colors
> and ignore the words, or read the words and ignore the colors as you
> desire.


This task involves high level attention control also
required for planning, error detection and responding
to novel or difficult stimuli and is associated with
high activity in the anterior cingulate.

--
JC

N

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 06:37:5129.10.06
an
Curt Welch wrote:-

>You mean say the color and not the word right?

>I can't even do it. It's running too fast for me to be able to overcome
>the dominance of the written word. I suspect with enough practice I'd get
>better, but it's hard. The colors are also odd enough that I have trouble
>naming some of them even when I pause the video.

the original one I saw asked for you to name any
colour other than the one on screen... so I simplified
it, it was only to demonstrate the confusion between
learned associations. I'm sorry it was too fast and
looks better smaller. If the words had been written
in a language unknown to you, you'd get the color
correct without confusion.

I'd thought of using a black or white word on a
complimentary background of either white or black...
easier still, unless you get an after-image in white
or black only to confuse things.


>It's not just the fact that the written word is overpowering the color, but
>the simple fact that there are two color concepts on the screen at the same
>time and no easy way to select one over the other in the mind. You can't
>look at the color, without the eye seeing the word at the same time, so you
>brain is trying to activate two competing color concepts at the same time
>and trying to make the brain pick one or the other is hard.


>What you would probably need to do, is create a practice set which had
>colored words that didn't name colors. Practice switching between reading
>the colors and reading the words with that set. The more you practice at
>that task, the better you would probably become at being able to control
>which you were doing so that in the real task, you could read the colors
>and ignore the words, or read the words and ignore the colors as you
>desire.

I was messing with an idea of using a spectrum of
commonly associated coloured symbols, red heart,
yellow banana, green leaf, blue waves, then
arranging them in a logical sequence that required
a choice at the end, (and also including a random
sequence). For instance they might be arranged
numerically,by colour mix & by combining
symbols, Even symbols are learned tho.

Are there any symbols or compositions that arnt
learned? I draw the line at symbols learned by
rote, I believe a natural inclination leads us
to associate by similarity and our experiences,
it still stands tho that theres compositions
we all understand without having to be taught.


JC wrote:-


>This task involves high level attention control also
>required for planning, error detection and responding
>to novel or difficult stimuli and is associated with
>high activity in the anterior cingulate.

This test will be better,
http://www.snre.umich.edu/eplab/demos/st0/stroopdesc.html

N.

Wolf K

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 12:21:0629.10.06
an
PeskyBee wrote:
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsiz...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:4543802e$0$31245$ed36...@nr2.newsreader.com...
>>> If one want simply to reproduce the result of that paper (which is a
>>>> good thing in itself) one will arrange similar experimental conditions.
>>> What I said was: "How would you produce the phenomenon reported in the paper in
>>> the laboratory and with non-fruit shapes?" Now, would you care to answer the
>>> question I asked?
>> PB: I would set up an experiment where different simuli (variations along
>> some dimensions) are presented while we measure behavioral responses.
>> Is that what you wanted to hear?
>>
>> GS: Are you retarded or something? I'm asking you to PRODUCE the phenomenon in
>> the laboratory WITH SHAPES THE PERSON OR ANIMAL HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE. You think
>> that it is an accident that they used grey pictures in the shape of fruit for
>> Christ's sake?
>
> Behaviorists lose their temper so easily, I wonder if that's because
> they're being forgotten (being this newsgroup one of the last stances
> where they can still utter their dogmas).
>
> Here it is: the phenomenon may not appear with shapes not seen before.

I predict it will not appear. But I also predict that if a certain shape
is presented X times with the same colour, then if the shape is
presented at the X+1th time with a different colour, the behaviour of
"higher memory modulating the visual perception" will appear. X will
vary between subjects and between species.

> Is that what you wanted to hear? This seems so obvious, that it didn't
> occur to me to answer it before. Well, now that you're satisfied (after
> all, this fits into your dogma, although as I said elsewhere, anything
> will fit, being this just a consequence of what has been throughly
> said in 1953!), can you explain HOW this can be used AGAINST any theory
> of perception that cognitive neuroscientists endorse? Can you tell us
> if you believe that Semir Zeki, Zenon Pylyshyn, Stephen Kosslyn and
> Shimon Edelman will blush trying to explain all this?

>[...]

If my prediction turns out to be true, then the question becomes: why do
we need to invoke "higher level memory" (HLM)to explain what was
observed? It seems an unnecessary multiplication of entities to me.

But let's accept HLM as a working hypothesis. The data about colour
vision cannot demonstrate the existence of HLM, since HLM was invoked to
explain the data. You (and many others) seem to want to assert that the
data prove the existence of HLM, but it just ain't so. Data cannot prove
the existence of any entity invoked to explain it. It is after all
possible (easy, actually) to invoke other entities to explain the same
data. Only some consequence of the HLM hypothesis will or will not
support the claim that HLM is real.

One such consequence is that HLM must be located somewhere in the brain,
else the data it stores cannot be retrieved to interfere with actual
perception. Furthermore, HLM cannot be the same as "lower level memory",
whatever that may be. So, how would you about finding where HLM and
other kinds of memory are located? How would go about showing that this
or that neuron or cluster or network or whatever stores data "at a
higher level" than some other neuron or cluster or network? At the level
of actual neuron function, it can't be done. There is nothing in a spike
train, or in a chemical cascade, that identifies the neuron as operating
at a "higher level." What's more, there cannot be. The only way to
identify neurons as functioning "at a higher level" is to correlate
their functioning with behaviour. Ie, if you can show that whenever "HLM
modulates colour vision", some specific neurons/clusters/networks become
active, then you may be able to say that these neurons/clusters/networks
are implicated in HLM.

But then the next question becomes: what attributes of the
neurons/clusters/networks constitute the data that interfere with the
correct colour perception? My limited reading suggests that there are no
such attributes. It seems that when HLM is modified by experience, ie,
when the subject learns to see colour correctly, unmodulated by HLM,
then the structure of the implicated networks changes, and that such
structures may even disappear (the network disintegrates.) If this is
indeed so, then the most we can say is that HLM consists of some
structure within the brain. But again, there is no apparent feature that
distinguishes an HLM structure from any other.

IOW, all we appear to know at present is that some structures in the
brain can become activated so as to prevent seeing colour correctly, and
can also become deactivated so that we do see colours correctly. But why
one would want to talk about these structures as different levels of
memory is to me a mystery. Talk about different levels of memory is a
form of literary analysis IMO, and as such can be instructive. But it is
not brain function analysis.

Etc.

HTH

Wolf K

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 12:42:1429.10.06
an
> memory storage and retrieval is important to the explanation of the
> mechanism involved (that needs to be manipulated; i.e., there are neuron and
> neuronal-group-level explanations of memory and there are also regional
> explanations (involving several neuronal groups)). Nature Neuroscience 5,
> 8 - 9 (2002) Neural correlates of human memory, Paul Fletcher & Lorraine
> Tyler

I'm aware of those studies, but disagree with the cognitive
interpretation of the results. What's more, your examples are not of
"specific memories", which is what I referred to. Ie, I mean that you
should be able to implant a memory of, say, a graduation dance that the
subject never attended. This can be done using behavioural techniques,
but not AFAIK by any direct manipulation of the brain, at any level.

It may be a "sofar it can't be done", but the papers you mention do not
IMO provide clues on how to do it. I know that it's been shown that a
single neuron may activate when the subject recognise some specific face
eg, Marilyn Monroe.) I can't recall whether the same neuron activates
when that person's name is spoken but IIRC it does. But the most you can
do is damage the neuron so that specific face is no longer recognised
(as happens on a larger scale when stroke causes apoprognosia.) By
"implant a memory" I mean manipulating a single neuron in such a way
that when the subject is presented with a photo of an hitherto unknown
person, (s)he recognises that person. Sofar at least, the only methods
that do produce such a result are all behavioural.

>> It may be possible to do this; I know of no successful attempts so far,
>> but that won't stop anyone from trying. But no amount of talk about
>> "higher memory modulating vision" provides even a clue of how to go about
>> doing it.
>
> The various papers dealing with such neural correlates do provide clues -
> see the paper ref'd above.
>
>> One can implant memories, with frightening ease, by using behavioural
>> techniques, such as "suggestion", (the partial modelling of the desired
>> response, a thoroughly behaviourist technique, and one that works so well
>> that one must guard against its inadvertent use when conducting
>> experiments.)

Well, what is your take on manipulating memories, as studied by E.
Loftus for example? She showed that "memory as storage-retrieval system"
is not only false, but in its legal effects pernicious. She did this by
implanting and modifying memories with the purely behavioural techniques
of "interrogation".

HTH

Glen M. Sizemore

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 12:57:2829.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:4544e2c3$0$14829$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

I should have posed the question differently. The issue is: How do you get
the effect with shapes that currently don't produce it? As to novel stimuli,
an important question is how novel is novel? If the "novel" shape gets to
close to, say, a banana, then one WOULD get the effect. [Of course, the
shape would not be functionally novel.] At least one would have to predict
that if the effect is due to classical conditioning which it almost
certainly is. The effect clearly depends on the correlation of shape and
color - i.e., a "pairing" of these stimulus dimensions.

Alpha

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 15:51:4929.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:4544e7b5$0$14835$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

> Alpha wrote:
>> "Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
>> news:4542a0b2$0$14841$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>>> Alpha wrote:
<snip>

>
> I'm aware of those studies, but disagree with the cognitive interpretation
> of the results. What's more, your examples are not of "specific memories",
> which is what I referred to. Ie, I mean that you should be able to implant
> a memory of, say, a graduation dance that the subject never attended. This
> can be done using behavioural techniques, but not AFAIK by any direct
> manipulation of the brain, at any level.

I don't know either. Sounds theoretically possible/in principle I don;t
have any objections but I have not thought about it that deeply yet.

I am not aware of the work; I will investigate though - sounds interesting.

> but in its legal effects pernicious. She did this by implanting and
> modifying memories with the purely behavioural techniques of
> "interrogation".
>
> HTH

--

Alpha

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 16:01:4729.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:4544e7b5$0$14835$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

> Alpha wrote:
>
> Well, what is your take on manipulating memories, as studied by E. Loftus
> for example? She showed that "memory as storage-retrieval system" is not
> only false,

So far as I've read, that is not the case at all. With the problem so
stated: "The problem is that memories recovered this way are notoriously
unreliable", does not mean that we do not form tons and tons of reliable
memories! When different "techniques" are used to interfere with or
suppress memory formation or retention processes, of course one expects such
anomolous events (as people report events that never happened or report
different details and so forth and so on).

That is why it is called: "False Memory Syndrome"!

It is aberrant, pathological, not normal and does not mean normal memory
processes do not exist. One cannot use an example of a non-running car that
has no engine (or has a dysfunctional one) to prove or show that all cars
with or without engines cannot run.

I.e., that syndrome does not come close to meaning that :memory as
storage-retrieval system" is somehow a false conception of what memory is or
what it is doing. (I think it is simplistic, but a reasonable description
as far as it goes.)

>but in its legal effects pernicious.

Tht I did not really care to examine or think about.

> She did this by implanting and modifying memories with the purely
> behavioural techniques of "interrogation".
>
> HTH

--

Wolf K

ungelesen,
29.10.2006, 20:01:0929.10.06
an
Alpha wrote:
> "Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
> news:4544e7b5$0$14835$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Alpha wrote:
>>
>> Well, what is your take on manipulating memories, as studied by E. Loftus
>> for example? She showed that "memory as storage-retrieval system" is not
>> only false,
>
> So far as I've read, that is not the case at all. With the problem so
> stated: "The problem is that memories recovered this way are notoriously
> unreliable", does not mean that we do not form tons and tons of reliable
> memories! When different "techniques" are used to interfere with or
> suppress memory formation or retention processes, of course one expects such
> anomolous events (as people report events that never happened or report
> different details and so forth and so on).
>
> That is why it is called: "False Memory Syndrome"!
>
> It is aberrant, pathological, not normal and does not mean normal memory
> processes do not exist. One cannot use an example of a non-running car that
> has no engine (or has a dysfunctional one) to prove or show that all cars
> with or without engines cannot run.
>
>
>
> I.e., that syndrome does not come close to meaning that :memory as
> storage-retrieval system" is somehow a false conception of what memory is or
> what it is doing. (I think it is simplistic, but a reasonable description
> as far as it goes.)

IMO, Loftus's (and other people's) work shows that _no_ memory is
reliable. After all, the only way you can tell whether your memory of
some event is more or less correct is by comparison with other evidence,
such as photos, written accounts made by you (or other people) as the
event unfolded or immediately afterwards, etc etc etc.

Read up on a pre-Loftus experiment, in which two groups of people were
shown two versions of a mugging. In one film, a white perp mugged a
black victim, in the other a black perp mugged white victim.

Immediately after the showing, a small but significant percentage (about
5% IIRC) of the audience who saw a white perp mug a black victim
reported that they had seen a black perp and a white victim. When asked
to recall the scene later, the percentage who claimed this erroneous
memory rose as the time since seeing the film increased.

>> but in its legal effects pernicious.
>

> That I did not really care to examine or think about.

Agreed, it's not pleasant to think about how a false concept of what
people do when they remember an event can cause more or less serious
evil. Yet our justice system makes all kinds of assumptions about the
reliability of witnesses (including those witnesses who interpret
tangible data.)

You see, a few years ago, I made rather intensive study of what was then
know about memory and remembering. One of the lessons I took from that
study is that memory is unreliable, and easily manipulated. If we think
of remembering rather memory, ie, that memory is a behaviour, and hence
learned and conditioned and shaped as any behaviour may be, then the
unreliability of memory is easy to understand. But not if you think of
memory as what cognitivists appear to think it is. Especially not if you
think of memory as some set of mechanisms that are instantiated in the
brain. Mechanisms seem so -- well, so reliable, don't they?

HTH

Alpha

ungelesen,
30.10.2006, 12:46:1030.10.06
an

"Wolf K" <El_Lob...@Ruddy.Moss.com> wrote in message
news:45454e5b$0$14804$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

Again, pathological instances of memory/memorization do not disprove that
mechansims of memorization exist in brain - only that such mechanisms can be
prone to error. In addition, what is one to make of the experiments that
show that the hormonal milieu mitigates/potentiates memorization prowess!?
That is, for example, that it has been shown that adrenaline present in
certain quantities in body helps or hinders the formation of memory
(depending when the adrenaline was adminstered - pre-, during- or
post-learning)! That would not be so if there were not any such mechamisms
to begin with.

Wolf K

ungelesen,
30.10.2006, 18:21:1730.10.06
an
Alpha wrote:
[...]

> Again, pathological instances of memory/memorization do not disprove that
> mechansims of memorization exist in brain - only that such mechanisms can be
> prone to error. In addition, what is one to make of the experiments that
> show that the hormonal milieu mitigates/potentiates memorization prowess!?
> That is, for example, that it has been shown that adrenaline present in
> certain quantities in body helps or hinders the formation of memory
> (depending when the adrenaline was adminstered - pre-, during- or
> post-learning)! That would not be so if there were not any such mechamisms
> to begin with.


Hormones change all learning, not just "memory formation." Other
chemical changes (eg, ingestion of alcohol) also have effects on
learning. By your logic, there must be "skill mechanisms" in an
organisms, since the learning of skills is affected by hormones (and
other chemicals), and such effects could not occur if there were no
skill mechanisms to begin with. Etc.

Alpha

ungelesen,
30.10.2006, 18:46:4730.10.06