> From: "Parker, Chris" <C.C.Parker@soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:27:43 +0000 (GMT)
> Picture Metaphor: I so agree that the "The whole vocabulary of imagery
> uses language appropriate for describing pictures and the process of
> perceiving pictures." At the start of this paper I was worried that the
> title indicated more of the same thing.
> Information Processing Model: I couldn't follow all of this, but will
> we be moving towards the "fine detail information processing model" as
> a replacement for the picture/image metaphor, which has no causal role
> for the experience of imaging? I'm trying to see where we are going.
Pylyshyn's point is that as long as we are just describing pictures or
the process of viewing pictures we are not explaining cognition, we
are just positing a little man in the head who does what we do (looks at
pictures). It becomes an explanation when you get rid of the picture and
the little man and replace it by a causal model that explains what we do
(when we thing`k we're doing it by using imagery).
In those days he spoke about an "information processing model," but in
"Computation and Cognition" Pylyshyn comes out and says that what he
means is computation. We'll soon find out what THAT means...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:56 GMT