Yes, babies . [ Otherwise what are you doing? ; on what basis? Major confusionS are not apt to "sort themselves out". ]
[ You cannot just "hack away" at "it" , because you must always refine the "it" you are "hacking away" at . ]
I have indicated the way and the central hypotheses are all NOW testable. :
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
There have been several learning theorists now that speak of non-associative influences on learning. Here are some quotes from a few:
(My important Comments follow the quotes, below.)
QUOTES From Three Ways That Non-associative Knowledge May Affect Associative Learning Processes:
"While Mitchell et al. (2012) favored an explanation purely based on conscious reasoning processes, where participants deliberately attend to the cues they believe are important, a viable alternative is that attentional processes are brought under conscious control and thus let non-associative knowledge influence the course of subsequent learning."
"In some circumstances, associative activation of the outcome may form the strongest available evidence about what is going to happen when a cue is presented, or the strongest indicator of how the individual should behave. But under other circumstances, for instance where it is very clear that a deductive reasoning process should be used, associative memory retrieval may play a relatively minor role "
"a viable alternative is that attentional processes are brought under conscious control and thus let non-associative knowledge influence the course of subsequent learning. This source of influence does not necessitate that non- associative expectations fundamentally change the operations of the associative network itself, merely what it receives"
"In addition, if non-associative knowledge can affect the way stimuli are represented then this knowledge may also change the manner in which associative retrieval generalizes from A to AB"
---------------------------
QUOTES From Mackintosh Lecture: Association and Cognition: Two Processes, One System. I.P.L. McLaren et al:
" ... does not shy away from placing associative processes at the very centre of our dual process account, and postulates that propositional processing is built upon associative foundations"
"... we are propositional entities constructed from an associative substrate."
----
QUOTES From
Moving Beyond the Distinction Between Concrete and Abstract Concepts Barsalou et al
"Conversely, when people generate features of abstract-LIT concepts, they typically generate external elements of the situations to which they apply. "
-----------------------
My IMPORTANT COMMENTS:
Problem for these theorists/researchers is that their "new propositions", "non-associative factors" and "new generalizations" ARE INTRACTABLE. Such phenomenon seem to be inferable, indeed, but they do not have a way to find the source (any empirical grounding). Thus, these theories at present have no empirical referents at major points to "get to go where they want to go".
Well, I actually address the same things: in EFFECT providing for new propositions (used in deductions), new generalizations, and what appear to be non-associative factors. BUT, my theory sees the origin of these effects IN QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT cognitive stages, and due to "perceptual shifts". BUT, here is the REALLY GOOD NEWS: I indicate an empirical way to discover the "perceptual shifts", using new eye-tracking technology and computer-assisted analysis. I describe what to look for in enough detail to do the eye-tracking studies, during ontogeny -- at key points. Thus, my theory, which provides for the same kind of shifts in learning HAS TESTABLE HYPOTHESES. If the hypotheses of my ethogram theory are verified (and they can be is correct), we will at least have found the concrete directly observable overt behavior patterns associated WITH THE INCEPTION of that which yields the new abilities/phenomenon.
One other thing: Because the proximate cause (outside environmental factors and contextualization from the Memories -- which both can be seen as the other simultaneous proximate causes) IS "perceptual shifts" then nothing is divorced from ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING. This is also the end of the nature/nurture false dualisms. All still involves associative learning -- and no strange "non-associative" stuff.
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
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
Also See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324391440_Moving_beyond_the_distinction_between_concrete_and_abstract_concepts/comments
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311588668_Three_Ways_That_Non-associative_Knowledge_May_Affect_Associative_Learning_Processes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322976821_Mackintosh_Lecture_Association_and_Cognition_Two_Processes_One_System
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning