Brad Jesness has added an update
Mar 31,2020
ANOTHER Overview of the Perspective
This most-quick and quite brief summary of my perspective seems worthy to be an Update in the Project Log of this Project: I argue that at key junctures during ontogeny (child development) there are very, very important, and essentially basic, perceptual shifts quickly leading to the directing of attention to clear sets of things (though these, through the abilities of long-term memory, may "transcend" many or most of a large set of apparent particulars, i.e. transcending many , but never all, the particulars of the given, relevant, present objects in the space at hand -- though a "situation" where unusually much of a given space's content is less relevant ; this is also a "transcendence" of time, that is: simply just any given present-present, for full effects. (To most cognitive-developmentalists there are 5 qualitatively different stages during child development. ) Both time and space transcendence occur for the reason of shifting toward developing qualitatively different sorts of concepts and thought and this, at the same time, allows (seemingly ironically) for the concrete observable specifics behind abstraction and abstract thinking. There is concrete grounding in specifics, just not those necessarily ALL simply here and now (the "given" here and now before one's eyes). A good thing in my theory is that ALL is defined by a set of observable overt behavior patterns and overt observable [(environmental)] circumstances/situations ASPECTS -- AT LEAST AT THE INCEPTION OF ANY NEW WAY OF CONCEPTUALIZING AND THINKING. This is all a neo-Piagetian theory (but now completing Piaget with the reason for the stage shifts well-defined), now with the STRONG, desirable concrete strict empiricism for any and ALL of our concepts, constructs, etc. (true whether you are talking about the scientific observer OR the Subject); and, this is exactly what is needed and required for any true science. Now, where's the testability?? Believe it or not, my Ethogram Theory has very clear hypotheses for what you can see (behavior patterns and circumstances) AT KEY TIMES and these that are KEY even those that are there in any given important set of circumstances). The natural shifting one's basic perception (at least one such major shift per stage -- and there are 5 shifts during the main ontogeny (i.e. during child development)) -- very much in line with neo-Piagetian theory (and the prevalent cognitive-developmental view, some decades back). ANYHOW, Soon the shift in basic perception changes that/what one glances at and then what one gazes at (attends to) goes to mailnly to the specifics in EACH of the concrete circumstance involved. Still to understand all this one has to be clear on how this relates to phenomenology. My view is basically that the Memories (the different ones identified and proven separate) ARE phenomenology itself. During particular KEY behavior pattern changes/circumstances processed (even considering the monumental changes these early effects become): they have their inception in the moment (with perception being OF concrete overt observables) -- and with/showing the characteristics and contents of working memory (aka short-term memory) : the amount of things/"chunks" and span-of-things (<-- as naturally linked as one moves between relevant circumstances, i.e. with long-term memory doing the MAJOR contextualizing) may well be cross-situational BUT ALL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS AND KEY ENVIRONMENT ASPECTS involved __ARE__ ([also] in each setting) : OVERT AND DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE (at least in the beginning moments of a new stage) -- i.e. in each of the involved key settings, with there being some definable species-specific or species-typical associated behavior PATTERNS. I DO most certainly admit that the new set of things perceived/glanced at/gazed at and attended to CAN (in fact: ARE) subtle enough that, with the inception of that phenomenology with the latter stages, they likely require eye-tracking technology (and, perhaps, computer-assisted analysis). The good news: given the "span" and processing of short-term memory (it too being vital), THE SUBTLE, yet overt, behavior patterns, and the related OBSERVABLE environmental aspects ARE CONCRETE-- even in the regular space-and-time aspects of some typical lab settings. More good news: all this not only provides a paradigm for an actual science of psychology, but is all particular and concrete enough to be "mechanized" for the most major system at the core of any General Artificial Intelligence. I recommend you read all my major writings and essays (about 900 pages in length -- to distinguish, justify, and compare and contrast my perspective and approach with those prevalent today); you can start finding the relevant papers, Projects, and Updates via: Brad Jesness