What is really central in real thinking (its development)? I say: special and especially important PROXIMATE causes that are, at necessary times (points in development (ontogeny)), observable. ("Observable" both to the Subject and to the scientist. )
I submit that the real CORE (beginnings and THE BASES) of THINKING (itself) are certain (or a certain type of) PROXIMATE CAUSES and that, now with new eye-tracking technology, etc., these major directly observable proximate causes can be found with real-time study. THOSE THAT ARE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, during key points ("stages") in development (ages 1-18 y.o. +) (ontogeny): in rather "quick order" being obviously KEY in resulting (and realizing) new ways of categorizing and new ways to understand causation -- much of the point of THINKING. These would not only be proximate causes in the sense of something (here: environmental-aspects-and-associated-behavior-patterns) preceding something, that is, behavior[-pattern] change, BUT also in playing a distinct role in changing the nature of learning (actually: representation, memory, and learning). Thus, the great importance of likely then-OBSERVABLE (at that point in ontogeny) (via eye-tracking) perceptual/attentional shifts that usher in each new stage/level of representation (with memory changes) and new learnings, and soon shown through and/or with problem-solving
You might ask: If this (what I said, above) is true and we have eye-tracking technology, why haven't we yet looked for (or just found) these perceptual/attentional phenomenon?: Well, here's a partial list of "why"'s (which often should all be put-together to appreciate the full 'problem'): (1) contentment with existing systems; (2) great long-standing "contentment" with assumptions (which are really just beliefs) -- those that have existed historically for a very long time but still are baseless, unfounded, and unproductive (AND THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES) (two examples of such present and long-standing groundless beliefs: 1. "All significant innate factors are already present in infancy" and 2. "the more learning an organism does, the less innate guidance" (this seemingly having the not-even-need-be-stated 'automatic corollary' that "'higher thought' could never involve anything innate")); these have not just limited thought but limited possible thought-systems and limited the very 'direction' of our thought (the contorted, ill-founded, totally unsubstantiated "embodiment theories" are examples of the perverse things wrought of limited thought); It is extremely arguable that an OPPOSITE of each and every one of these beliefs ('assumptions') is true (AND these are biologically-consistent alternatives: they are better, even if just because of the biological consistency AND they have as much or more good foundation as the traditional 'assumptions' and are more likely true -- there are a total of 6 or 7 of the bad ones (these and the alternatives are described and discussed in some of my other essays)) ; (3) great contentment with generating or elaborating our own (or using our great professors') hypothetico-deductive systems -- heck, that seems to be all we do in other contexts and that seems great; this extreme deductive "systems" thinking is also associated with a poor observational base (we basically don't observe before we "theorize" and leave the Subject "behind" when one should be always observing as much/many relevant behavior patterns/environmental aspects as are possibly informative: h-d systems should come only when the force of necessary structure in the raw data compels it); (4) a strong sense that the terms we use are fully (or certainly sufficiently) meaningful just as they are (and as they have been) used, when they are not (e.g. 'learning', 'reinforcement' -- 2 biggies); (5) No connection between key perceptual/attentional shifts and our intuitive sense of what is important . These bases of thinking are rather quickly and possibly widely used and elaborated (in big part by the contributions of memory) -- and all this always occurring naturally, so key phenomenon, important at the inception of types of thought, are barely noticed even given the importance of their results (and perhaps because of the great inherent limitations when considered by themselves, since these p/a shifts are buttressed by what comes forward from memory -- possibly making the shifts phenomenologically seem very small, plus they could pass quickly with new representation coming on quickly) ; [ still, something like these shifts I believe can be shown to be a rational and logical necessity for an empirical approach -- for this reason alone, they cannot be reasonably dismissed by a scientist ]; and (6) it may not be easy to parse these phenomenon out of the mass of eye-tracking data (and may require a person of great knowledge, including of eye-tracking; intelligently programmed computer-analysis software may well be required).
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list -- just what quickly came to mind; I have written about a number of these matters. I hope all this helps (and helps "my cause"). I probably also should have had: (7) [convenient] 'confusion' of conclusions with assumptions (believing some of one's conclusions ARE assumptions), this likely being a side-effect of only having some groundless beliefs as assumptions. I surely should have listed this, since this is a major contention about how prevalent theories are wrongful in my big paper, "A Human Ethogram ..."; this paper also describes an ethological, biologically-consistent system for describing and viewing and tracking behavior without any of the old, bad 'assumptions'; and it describes the major universal repercussions of the perceptual/attentional shifts and tries to show how they are likely and sufficient "for the job"; READ THAT NOW, IF YOU HAVEN'T YET: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses .
P.S. There is also an overemphasis and overestimate of the role and importance of [often ill-defined, and largely unsubstantiated] "social learnings" -- likely because we are very social and love that, but we should not be irrational and fail to have the view of the centrality and importance of the individual organism in its own development; (Seriously, though: "Social learning" is also called upon A LOT because there is a lack of consideration of -- or even the ability to even think of or conceive of -- other factors for learning.) There is also a similar overemphasis and overestimation of the role and importance of language (which I see as rather easily refuted) (these "rate" enough to be considered (8) and (9)).
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning