Re: cognitive != observable? (project three)

"Neil W Rickert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Patty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
> >> Patty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>>Perhaps I should emphasize more that the stratagy is to
> >>>create a platform on which we can *start* evolving.  Even a
> >>>baby does not know its references when it *starts* to babble.
>
> >> Very much the point.
>
> >> I got into this area at precisely that point -- how does a baby (or
> >> any organism) make sense of the bloomin' buzzin' confusion of signals
> >> and establish reference?
>
> >> I believe I have solved the problem.  But it turns out that
> >> practically nobody is in the least bit interested.  It seems that
> >> almost everybody take reference for granted, and sees me as not
> >> having solved any problem at all.
>
> >Well I am very interested in it.  Could you sketch the
> >solution here, or is it already on the web?
>
> In my version, what the brain is mainly doing is measuring and
> coordinating measurement.  It boils down to "cognition is
> measurement" rather than "cognition is computation."
>
> The main work of learning is the construction of measuring conventions.
>
> Hebbian learning then turns out to be fine tuning of the calibration
> for the measuring processes.

Are you a brain researcher?

> A major part of language acquisition amounts to calibrating ones
> measuring in a way that coordinates with the rest of the community.


Ed