Models and [ non-concrete * ] Mechanisms: Don't they seem to have the same problems with respect to actual phenomenology and what is real?
Maybe they are temporarily necessary, but should be avoided and should be bettered (AND REPLACED) as good research progresses. If this betterment does not happen, you are not doing at least some of the essential research (likely observational). PERIOD.
Isn't it possible that the best understanding is just the knowledge of, and understanding of, SEQUENCES? (Of course these can be "made sense" of, within the "whole picture", i.e. the greater overall understanding -- and there is "purpose" or direction to each behavior pattern [in the sequences].)
{ ALL this increases the key role (and sufficiency) of all the simple [ basically known ] sorts of associative learning ALONG WITH OUR SEVERAL SORTS OF MEMORIES. "Outside" of innate guidance WITH PERCEPTION/ATTENTION (including innate guidance in later stages/periods of development, with behavioral ontogeny) (and this innate guidance being WITH the simple learnings and Memories) AND their consequences with behavior patterns: the well-understood simple learnings may ultimately provide "the 'glue' for 'the whole story'" , otherwise -- i.e. other than the key "driven" directly observable sequences **.
AND NOTE: NO need whatsoever for special sorts of theorist/researcher-defined types of learning, e.g. "social learning", etc.. NO need for ANY of the "metas", presently a major homunculus.
This perspective "conveniently" has the advantage of be conceptualizable and is able to be clearly communicated -- requirements of ANY good science. It is within our abilities (as adults, at least at particular times) to actually 'see', i.e. to have and to provide REAL UNDERSTANDINGS. In my view, the other "choices" seem not to have these distinct characteristics (so, the perspective above is either true OR we all may well be "screwed").
* FOOTNOTE: "Concrete" meaning: with clear, completely observable correspondents; AND, likewise for models, with any promise (of progress and replacement).
** FOOTNOTE: "Directly observable" meaning: can be seen (and agreed upon AS SEEN) IN OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (AT LEAST AT KEY TIMES, e.g. with the inception of new significant behavior patterns).
--------------------------
P.S. This (above essay) may seem "self-serving", since I have a theory putting all of the positions/views above TOGETHER cogently and with clear testable/verifiable(refutable) HYPOTHESES (using modern technologies, eye-tracking and computer-assisted analysis). See:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory
See especially:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
AND
the Comments to (under) the second-to the-newest Update on the Project page: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory (for EVERYTHING)
Dear Kole Harvey
A key feature of my view is that innate guidances of perception/attention (more basic and, in time, general than ANY "affordances") CONTINUE TO EMERGE PERIODICALLY throughout ontogeny, esp. having major effects on cognitive abilities of all sorts; these emerge at key times WITH other behavior patterns in at least 5 stages/periods between birth and 18-21 yr. old ; and, these have overt observable direct behavioral accompaniments (at least at the inception, the beginning phenomenon, which are key to what will develop as new cognitive abilities). I have outlined clearly directly testable hypotheses of the phenomenology here. I have also outlined the possible nature of the PHASES of each of the beginnings of new period/stages -- all VERY clearly of the nature of Biology. (Also, such developments may well occur more than once, occurring basically/essentially again and again, in several different domains.) All this occurs in the context of past such developments and in the context of our Memories (
To put my main point most simply: models should (actually MUST) be fully based on discoveries, NOT VICE VERSA. Same for systems or systems of mechanisms. No theory, or anything, should ever be just based intuition, and then "researched". AND:
Your thinking is WAY OFF if you do not think this (as I said) is necessary or that this is not possible (though what I just indicated is the wrong way has been the "way" of most past and modern psychology). YOU ARE MISSING SOMETHING !
I DO have the answer : [ basically, it prominently includes the way to see/discover present conditions (aspects of each current environment) as a major set of proximate causes * -- something modern psychology has even "drifted" farther away from ] :
SEE:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory
And, see especially:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328201788_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory ( which includes:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
)
Outside of https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory (there is a couple of ways to get more to read): My other Projects are also related to my perspective and approach, and so more may be gleaned from those also.
* FOOTNOTE: This does MUCH to address Chalmer's "hard problem of consciousness" , in fact, to the extent that I see no such problem; THE PROBLEM is simply that of Psychology failing to even try to keep track of the real biology-of-behavior -- as always involving embeddedness with the environment (of course including the functioning of the Memories, based A LOT on past experience).
If you want to come to better know the very uncertain meaning of today's "mechanisms" (and related models), particularly those in Psychology, see:
Article Laws and Mechanisms in The Human Sciences
(Reread my last response (Answer) to note some new additions there.)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling