[ This is a thoroughly empirical cognitive-deveopmental approach to research and theory.]
I have tried to conceive of what possible overt behavior-pattern aspects AND clearly observable environmental aspects might always be able to be found at least at the inception of any major behavior change (including, and especially, the beginnings of major qualitative shifts in learning and conceptualization during ontogeny). I settled (by its possible adequacy in-the-'complex'-context-of-behavior -- and with nothing else historically noted as something apparently happening nor anything else imaginable) on the idea that perceptual/attentional shifts could indeed suffice. These may be enough to have a behavior that can be seen (using eye-tracking technology) and also to be able to see (or see with knowledge of past such developments) the clear environmental aspects involved as a new way of learning begins.
I believe as empiricists (and in trying to be completely strict empiricists) that at some points in ontogeny with major behavior-pattern changes there ARE such overt corresponding aspects (proximate causes: subtle yet clear behavioral redirection and still-detectable corresponding environmental aspects involved). But, I am always wondering: in how many contexts do these (or similar things) need to even be that overt as one generalizes a new WAY of viewing and conceptualizing and relating things or happenings (
Just to let people know, I corrected an editorial error occurring twice; clarified the way I wrote something; and added to the description of the 'attached' paper. If it didn't fully make sense before, I believe it will now. (Sorry for the delay in getting all thorough and correct, and making some sentences better.)
- Badges
- Science topic