BIG OVERALL QUESTION: How would one outline the steps in their building of a model that at all points was consistent with what we know about memory? : IN PARTICULAR, I am talking about the limited capacities of the various memories, no matter how sophisticated the "chunks" are or how sophisticated the contextualization of the episodic buffer and working memory can be: THERE STILL HAVE TO BE DEFENSIBLE "CHUNKS" -- which can be deliberately and clearly understood (or at least somehow particularly attended to), WITH NO JUMPS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A MODEL BEING TOO BIG. (This may seem like an unanswerable question, but in arguable terms, and at least with arguably decent rough characteristics, we could show likely compliance with findings on and principles of memory. BUT IN THE MAIN: NO ONE even TRIES in Psychology -- violating some of the strongest, consistent, long-standing, replicable empirical findings in all of psychology (on the Memories). Stop pretending the inadequacies are necessary; try to stop "steeping yourselves" in inadequacy.)
This is why I totally hate MODELS; they are allowed to involve some incredible "cleverness" of those who develop them, the BIG QUESTION is never asked (seemingly, or at least it is not asked well), and the "clever" never feel the need to question themselves (nor are they required to): the huge "match" of features they PRETEND IS CLEAR; this leads to both ridiculous 'theories' in psychology -- and great fragmentation; this clearly is a (THE?) major problem in psychology. (Though there are several who awe us with their "cleverness" -- and apparent detailed 'thought' (e.g. like "by analogy" or borrowing a full model from another field. LOL).)
By the way, in other sciences the BIG QUESTION _can_ be answered, because at each critical (conceptual change) point, ONE CAN ACTUALLY ASK?: what's your direct observable replicable evidence. AND, IN ANY GOOD SCIENCE, these questions INDEED CAN BE, AND ARE, ANSWERED (there are citable empirical directly observable reliable reasonable PROXIMATE causes for all, at each step). Psychologists, pay attention: that is what real science is like. STUDENTS, beware: You cannot continue to accept "the basic research is still being done" and "this is a complicated topic" FOR DECADES -- you settling for what may very much in crucial ways be complete B.S.. (Too much use of the word "complex" or "complicated" very often indicates confusion -- not anything like deep knowledge, which you still wait to understand.)
I propose a way to approach understanding cognitive development that, as clearly outlined, DOES (and will, at each step) allow for some key directly observable proximate causes "FOR EVERYTHING". It is a good process, and TOTALLY IN-LINE WITH what we know about the Memories (demonstrably, at each step -- no matter how a reasonable questioner "divides" things [(concepts, explanations)] UP). See: Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
It is clearly a core cognitive-developmental approach with as much direct empirical foundation imaginable. Take it, or use your "models" -- and stagnate, with PSYCHOLOGY AS AN INFANT "SCIENCE" (at best).
[ I also listed this post under the topic, Artificial Intelligence, because THEY need to know where/what psychology really is ! ]
[ Researchgate wants me to tell you that I have the relevant background to Answer this Question: I keep getting reminded in pop-ups to identify myself as an expert in the fields I am addressing. I have a background in cognitive-developmental psychology and human ethology, and ethology generally. For more, see the Info in my Profile and my past works, prominently including published works, and my good long record of college teaching.]
The new technologies (eye-tracking and computer-assisted analysis) which most probably will be necessary to verify hypotheses formulated from my accounts (and which are also, to a great extent: the accounts in major classic developmental theories) of the major systematic species-typical, cognitive and behavioral/emotional consequences of some key developments _AND_ accepting my perspective's plausible characterization OF the key phenomenon (perceptual or perceptual/attentional "shifts") behind/involved as key causes for the learning leading to the cognitive bases behind those consequences (all THAT ultimately yielding the specific hypotheses -- beginning, though, with findings on the "shifts"). It will all be a well justified approach (and always with changes in the account of behavior patterns developing and the understanding of that developing, BASED clearly very much on what has been SEEN or is clearly practically observable).
These are phenomenon which will be well-BASED and, FOR THE FIRST TIME BASED ON PHENOMENON (directly, reliably-seen, overt BEHAVIORAL PHENOMENON with excellent, specific inter-rater agreements) WHICH ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN, WITH ORDINARY UNASSISTED SIGHT TODAY, BUT which NOW MAY BE SEEN (actually SEEN) with the new technologies. In short, the new technologies may well represent something like the invention of the microscope for other sciences (of course, especially including biology -- of which behavior patterns should be seen as a subset). Something like this, looking to see that which may be well be THERE and very important and NOW can be seen, could provide great progress for the field, and just in these MAJOR SORT OF STEPS, integrally involving these new sort of observations, fill in a lot of empirical holes.
These very findings may also be foundational for the creation of real artificial intelligence, AGI -- making what they are simulating in a real sense for the first time NOT MODELS, but now including more aspects of real-time now-observable and primary, central phenomenon (behavior patterns) as some of the major essential "ingredients" driving the development of many major other important behaviors (all in empirically-grounded, concrete terms, and thus certainly, in acceptable and practical ways, able to be simulated).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence