Even if behavior was "embodied", wouldn't the brain notice? YES, of course: then the BRAIN would become the better "vehicle" for remembering, thinking, and "time travel" (i.e. prospective memory) -- possible (and possibly trivial) sensori-motor components notwithstanding. [ I am really quite tired of the "embodied" conceptualizations (which have yet to be shown as non-fictions *). See my writings. No one has argued against the views/approaches (content) in these writings NOR accepted/liked/or adopted them (now 1+ years (or 5+ years, depending how you look at it) and counting). ]
* Footnote: All this nonsense is ALL because NO PSYCHOLOGY OUTLOOK (other than my own) "believes in" anything psychological, innately guided, and emerging with ontogeny (which is not tenable). (The idea that learning is literally nearly always "the same" (outside of clearly always being associative in nature) is preposterous (think of a two -year-old and an adolescent -- and imagine any systematic and universal instruction you credibly might posit). P.S. Relatedly : "Culture" does NOT directly impinge on the individual -- the actual Subject and ultimate, but absolutely necessary, unit of analysis &/or explanation (for Biology or for Science). All executive or "meta" processes can NOT be properly shown to be anything but homunculi.)
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-for-PSYCHOLOGY
Dear Margaret H. Freeman
Perception is an important part (aspect) of behavior. When this is "adjusted" with experience, before or after [further] experience, or during (with) ontogeny seem to be the interesting questions. BASIC perception very likely shifts with ontogeny and this is NOT reasonably addressed at all by mainstream Psychology (anywhere) (this is why we have "lost Piaget"). (What distinctions are found during observations* OF the organism -- that is, THOSE that are defined BY the Subject/organism ITSELF -- THIS is what matters; what distinctions we make as humans barely matter -- BUT premature hypothetico-deductive theorizing or "models" are antithetical to science.) Behavior per se IS Biology. Psychology has abandoned its own field and has abandoned an extremely major aspect of Biology (again, behavior, and most crucially: OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR PER SE to properly explain ALL) and thus is NON-Science. That the pieces will NEVER incrementally come together, properly and validly, when one is looking in the "wrong direction(s)", this is surely something yet to be realized. (Neurological (brain) response indicators will not (in fact, can not) rectify this situation.)
* Footnote: We have also basically forgotten classical ethology, yet the ONLY time (at least in the last 70 years), behavioral science earned a Nobel Prize (and, it was specifically in "Physiology and Medicine", the closet category): THIS WAS FOR WORK of/in classically ethology and essentially all (some say completely all (I do)), based observations. Look up Tinbergen and Lorenz, 1973.
P.S. Ethology The Biology of Behavior (also a title of a great 1975 book (by I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt; first in English in 1975)) is to be seen (literally) in behavior PATTERNS and the patterning of patterns. Not speaking in terms of behavior PATTERNS, that itself, alone, shows Psychology is "off the track"and this is certain (although, I know, nothing is "supposed to be" certain).
Article Ethology: The Biology of Behavior
(see my Comment)
So, reference embodiment of language, why is it then that leg-related words have electrophysiological connectivities that are different than, face -or arm-related words?
Why does the motor region of the frontal cortex plan or rather pre-plan movements and is silent during the movememnts' executions? Why can you imagine playing tennis and the brain works as if you actually are? How does your conceptualization of this matter work then?
- Badges
- Science topic