Can someone explain to me how "embodied" 'theory' explanations of the thinking of older children is not ridiculous?
It seems needlessly constrained by analogies and strange things being posited ("forced" on the 'theorists' by likely-false, unfounded, unproven "assumptions" -- actually presumptions); it is not credible empirically; the evidence is so indirect and/or weak it more disproves the theories rather than supports them.
Also, corresponding to the lack of direct empirical referents (proximate causes), there ends up being little apparent connection to, or embedness WITH, THE ENVIRONMENT. This supposed "other side of the coin" is barely discussed or well-referenced (in reality) at all.
It is obviously irrationally (by analogy) just taking Piaget's well-documented and excellent sensori-motor findings and 'generalizing' that (really just by analogy) unto cognitive activities supposedly engaged in by older children (the supposed and very unlikely "co-actions" with the mother for social learnings are some good examples of truly unlikely occurrences 'hypothesized' for 'learning') .
It seems to me that the main reasons for these 'theories' are irrationally self-limited people, who cannot think of anything else. The impressively elaborate (though contorted) thought of Peter Konig, while perhaps making an impressive thought structure, gains nothing in credibility by that complexity. In fact, to me, if a simple conveyance of something is not even possible, then it indicates a serious lack of validity.
I HAVE proposed alternatives (which may seem "strange", but not for long -- because they are empirically reasonable (and biologically likely), with testable hypotheses, given new modern eye-tracking and computer analysis software; yet you still no doubt have to have a good solid background to know how/where/when to look.
[ If you know a lot of my postings, you know I am at "war" with psychology over fundamental assumptions and the ramifications of those. I cite 6 or 7 likely false "assumptions" (presumptions) of psychology and describe more-likely, more credible, alternatives. Psychologists have neither successfully attacked my positions (very arguably more likely and more biologically-congruent) NOR have they in any credible ways defended their own positions -- in almost a year now. ]
If few people even read this, the most likely explanation is fear of the professors, powers that be "in the system" -- what else is new?? Here is the way you can tell if the status quo forces control you: do you read only what professors have you read or what they recommend? SIMPLE.
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
please let me know if these reference are of help to you regarding embodiment theory:
1. Embodiment in early development - Vanderbilt University
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/infantlearninglab/files/2012/01/NeedhamLibertusEmbodiment1.pdf'
Embodiment' has come to represent the many ways in which the body influences the functioning of ... According to their theory, humans perceive in order to act and they act in ..... more satisfactory explanations for infant behavior than theories ...
2. An introduction to embodiment and digital technology research
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2257/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0212.pdfRenewed interest in theories and perspectives of embodiment has emerged in ..... basis for later theories of embodied interaction, which explain that interaction ...
3. Language and embodiment - CiteSeerX
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.663.9107&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Then we briefly explain the notion of simulation, addressing also its neuro- .... Instead the embodied theory states that the format of concepts matches the format ...
4. Embodiment in social psychology. TopiCS
https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/780/docs/12_topics_meier_et_al_embodiment.pdfKeywords:
Social psychology; Embodiment; Metaphor; Grounded cognition ..... and then examines how embodied theories can be used to explain and modify ...
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Dear Dennis Mazur
You say "Embodiment' has come to represent the many ways in which the body influences the functioning of ... According to their theory, humans perceive in order to act and they act in ..... [ (I got it) ] "
But "to act" does not mean sensori-motor type internal actions FOR CHILDREN BEYOND INFANCY OR TODDLER-HOOD. It is my position that their by-analogy "beliefs" become the only answer they can conceive of because THEY HAVE BASELESS UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS THAT gravely limit them (and COMPLETELY RESTRICT THEM TO A TINY SUBSET OF THINKING); they include:
(1) "the more learning an organism shows, the less innate guidance mechanisms". The latter part does NOT FOLLOW and is an unproven, unfounded presumption, LESS biologically likely that the opposite assumption.
(2) All innate processes and innate mechanisms related to cognition are more or less present at birth; this is another (related) unfounded and unproven PRESUMPTION. It is more biologically likely that the OPPOSITE IS TRUE and that all major cognitive developments are guided (in effect simultaneous with the individual organism learning) by innate action patterns occurring IN tandom with (and in response to ) special particular aspects of THE ENVIRONMENT perceived and attended to -- THUS EMBEDDED AND NOT EMBODIED.
(3) In important instances, nature factors and environmental factors appear in real effect SIMULTANEOUSLY in behavior -- something else they literally find absolutely impossible to conceive of, so such thoughts are also (as the 2 above) rejected right away ("out of hand") -- BUT FOR NO GOOD REASON.
There are 3-4 other unfounded, unproven assumptions THEY (and other psychologists) LIKELY BELIEVE which, along with these (above), BLIND modern psychologists to ALL BUT such "embodiment" presumptions and crazy ideas which could have ONLY THE MOST INDIRECT EVIDENCE. My perspective is more biologically likely, and IF THE TESTABLE HYPOTHESES (now possible to research AND TEST, with new eye-tracking technology, etc) ARE SHOWN TRUE, IT WILL BE WITH DIRECT OBSERVABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -- proximate causes.
In my more well-founded view: Modern psychology CANNOT "think outside the BOX" ** AND ** , in fact (to continue the analogy): THEY ARE IN THE WRONG BOX. My views cannot be countered at the present time; "embodiment" can be countered based on lack of relation to the environment and to biology AND because of the extremely weak, indirect "evidence" which arguably does more to disprove the theory than prove it -- not to mention the "assumptions" they have on NO DECENT FOUNDATIONS, whatsoever. (These constitute 4 extremely serious and powerful criticisms.)
Piaget's SENSORI-MOTOR Theory of cognitive developments in infancy is great, with good direct evidence. Your cited desperate, needlessly limited "hypotheses" (by- analogy) are simply pure junk.
( It is amazing how the presumptuous can state their position: THEY explain and explain and explain again AND AGAIN, but such contorted elaborate unsubstantiated "explanations" HAVE THE STATUS OF FAIRY TALES.)
P.S. I am close to the point that I have read enough of the "embodied" JUNK; I will read more cited "embodied" articles when they have read much of my work HERE (on researchgate) and much that's linked-to (all totaling about 500 pages). Otherwise, those folks may have to cogently and elaborately describe any research they wish I read (and which I may not have read).
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Here is something that, in major ways, is the "opposite" of the 'theories' of "embodied cognition" -- and it is ultimately empirical and behavioral and environmental -- and does not minimize REPRESENTATION. It is in-line with the way memory really is, is ecological, and has assumptions consistent with biology:
Relative to modern psychology, I have gone from "embodied" unprovable 'theories'
(ridiculous to the extreme, due to limited thinking from false "assumptions" (presumptions)) TO
theory most thoroughly EMBEDDED in the environment:
"How can good true empirical psychology, alone, make it more than plausible (and very likely) that FULL, true artificial intellegence is possible?" LINK:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_good_true_empirical_psychology_alone_make_it_more_than_plausible_and_very_likely_that_FULL_true_artificial_intellegence_is_possible
There are 300 pages of explication in my Questions and Answers on researchgate and another 200 pages, in 2 large papers, linked to
from researchgate.
Regards, Brad
- Badges
- Science topic