Is there any foundation to executive and "meta" processes? OR, are they simply "self-evident" and seen "as measured"??
I can assure all that they are NOT rationally or logically REQUIRED for the behavioral system (a biological system) to work -- I have made this abundantly clear. (Basically, the organism just sees/searches adaptively -- and progressively -- BASED ON MORE fundamental faculties and capacities FOR WHICH THERE _IS_ GOOD EVIDENCE. And, that is all.)
Students who simply accept this garbage are creepy.
"Ditto" for those who "believe in" vague 'embodied' processing, actually AGAIN neglecting MORE fundamental faculties and capacities FOR WHICH THERE _IS_ GOOD EVIDENCE -- and which more than suffice for better explanations.
[ Hey college and grad students: Please try to not be as bad or worse than my generation was. As 45+ years ago, your professors are largely, in effect, a pack of idiots **. ** FOOTNOTE: Just ask them about nature/nurture, if you don't believe me; that is one of the "roots" of all "roots" of confusion/misunderstanding; unjustified presumptuous UNPROVEN pseudo-assumptions are another -- check THOSE out too. ]
P.S. For the overly materialistic: Brain science will not save the day: that is "an island". Psychology, as a science of behavior, CAN BE A SCIENCE ITSELF.
Good URL for You
- https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00154/full
- https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/31/335109.full.pdf
Dear Mohmed Abdallah Turky
Your articles put together brain science with these "as-if" hypotheticals -- and "as-if" vagarities seem enough to appear to 'relate' to the brain scans which have no clear direct relationships with major behavior patterns (
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence