Shouldn't I provide a shorter (or graduated) way to see what I am all about?
Well, here is an attempt at that :
I (myself) avoid (eschew?) defining anything, I have viewed attention as an aspect of working memory or/and an aspect of the episodic buffer (usually or always both). Both change a lot and frequent (both are very "dynamic") . It is hard to see how attention would not be similarly dynamic (as well as a guiding factor for those 2 memory aspects or types of memory). That being the case, it seems to me it would be well nigh impossible to factor "attention" out. (And "we" should define nothing; the Subject should define all -- as it was with the classical ethologists of the 60s and 70s -- AND AS IS THE CASE WITH ALL TRUE SCIENCES.)
An easy (shorter) way to see my outlook is to read the outline and guidelines I provide for AI people (that about 35 pages long) -- and THAT is also what I believe should be roughly, the as-of-yet outline of good behavioral science: cognitive-developmental human ethology, with (always) an eye to contributing towards an ethogram via that which is ALWAYS founded in the sometime present directly observables (as true proximate causes, along with aspects of the present environment, and simultaneous "innate direction" provided). (This is basically a type of classical ethology, which unfortunately even today's "ethologists" do not know, recall or respect.)
Anyhow, if it is good enough to "mechanize" in AI, AND IS NOT A MODEL OR ANALOGY, but a fair and likely necessary outline of our rather well-defined memory facilities (and capacities) (AKA our differ sorts of Memory) -- all based on the best research -- _AND_ the key "containing system" seen as innately guided qualitative shifts IN/by gaze changes, then things 'noticed' (though often unconscious, and thus better termed "patterned-gazes-noticed") , then defined (conscious) attention, and then new processing (for new representations, and soon, new types/hierarchical levels OF THINKING (all the connected cognition there)). The latter is where BOTH psychology and AI need to make discoveries to progress empirically and systematically (and as any kind of decent science). Anyhow, for a short version of my view,
see:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology
AND also read the COMMENTS below the item,
Data everythinga.doc 0B (Read "A Human Ethogram ..." sometime rig... :
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
AND
And then, read my major Project description:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory
--------------------------
AND, finally, for MUCH more (for "everything"), if so desired, see:
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
(160 pages)
and
read my 326-page collection of essays, everythinga.doc_0B.pdf , UNDER
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321685790_everythingadoc_0B_Read_A_Human_Ethogram_sometime_right_around_when_you_read_this
BY clicking the link to that collection (to everythinga.doc_0B.pdf (and, again, read the new additions, as Comments, under that).
Maybe I am wrong, but I give a clear completely empirical approach to see if I am correct or not. It has been correctly said that I am -- as much as a cognitive developmental ethologist could possibly be -- a "methodological behaviorist"; and, all else cited except such behaviorism (
Editorial correction (of the main post, the Question, above):
... AND
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology
Following this SHOULD HAVE READ :
AND also read the COMMENTS below the item (the BOOK),
Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...
LET ME ADD, here too, the rationale for the combination of AI and Psychology (as related/linked):
Since the requirements for AI and behavioral science & the requirements for human behavioral science (psychology, human ethology) are in their basic nature the same, THAT is the basis for the combination of topics, in this post (Question): Empirical, concrete bases, for EVERYTHING, in DIRECT observation (to literally see ALL proximate causes of behavior pattern change: existing observable patterns, current (present, directly observable) environmental aspects, AND observable innate guidance IN the behavior patterns OR their change, SIMULTANEOUS with those 2 other factors -- no nature/nurture "conflict" (debate)).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology