ResearchGate
< Back

February 2019

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 26,2019

STILL: Looking for lead/head Collaborator to do the needed empirical research (very likely involving eye-tracking and computer assisted analysis of behavior)

STILL: Looking for lead/head Collaborator to do the needed empirical research (very likely involving eye-tracking and computer assisted analysis of behavior patterns). Here is a post (Question) which may clarify what is needed: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_Technologies_in_the_role_of_a_MICROSCOPE_for_psychology_been_developed_which_can_now_be_used_to_investigate_important_observational_specifics (Please try to ignore the spam &quot;Answers&quot; below the Question and below my top 2 Answers, from someone else.

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 12,2019

The Concrete (EMPIRICAL) beginnings of Abstract Concepts and Abstract thinking ; then: A General Definition of Science

The Concrete (EMPIRICAL) beginnings of Abstract Concepts and Abstract thinking ; then: A General Definition of Science Some say: &quot;Numbers are conceptual constructions and hence they are not observables. &quot; (end quote) Non sequitur. A heck of a lot of conceptual constructions are clearly and obviously concrete or concretely based AND it is simply by not being an empiricist AND BY using insufficient imagination that one can fail to imagine (OR, as an empiricist, ASSUME) that ALL concepts and related thinking, AT LEAST AT THEIR INCEPTION, are relate to (founded on) observable elements of concrete situations or circumstances. The problem: There simply seems to be a falsely conceptualized limit on/in what many people can believe can be &quot;brought forth&quot; from the Memories and through working memory; I say there is no reason not to believe it is enough for one circumstance, as actually processed, to be, in effect, like it is two or three, etc. circumstances, and with these circumstances possibly seeming to be very different: BUT IT IS JUST --&gt; ONE CIRCUMSTANCE (and ANY new parts being CONCRETE *) &lt;-- , CONTEXTUALIZED BY the well-developed Memories (phenomenologically). Looking into what may be involved here might make you start to believe as I do, about the concrete beginnings of abstract concepts. BUT, I do happen to believe there is more (and better) for clear research results (easier to see, when found): I also think that which allows for qualitative shifts in concepts and thinking at key points during development (ontogeny) necessarily especially and most clearly involve &quot;the innate&quot; expressing itself in &quot;perceptual shifts&quot;, and those directly effect what we learn (at that moment and time) -- that, too, is needed to believe as I believe, about higher concepts development. These shifts can be seen as directly observable overt accompaniments to these most-major developments, though the directly observables are likely subtle; yet, these CAN be observed with the new eye-tracking technology (and computer-assisted analysis). These &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; are a key part of the perspective and approach I advocate. These &quot;shifts&quot; are about &quot;half&quot; of Ethogram Theory; the rest based on the Memories and what they do and how they can and do develop (and this is why AI should love me as providing a Psychology that IS CONCRETE and can be understood and modeled -- and psychology people should love this to). Anything else about Ethogram Theory is Biological consistency and parsimony, e.g. the latter with respect to the continuing common characteristics/aspects of 'learning', kind of ironically. YET ALWAYS: IN addition to anything said above THE MAJOR WORK IS BEING AN EMPIRICIST AND DOING THE NEEDED RESEARCH, and DISCOVERING what is supposed to be there. Ethogram Theory IN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE seeks to show (when the research is done) THAT ALL concepts/thinking (and addressed by Psychology) are minimally, and/or at their inception, BASED or FOUNDED on directly observable overt phenomenon * (in the case of psychology, behavior patterns) -- this includes ALL the most abstract concepts and thinking a human is capable of. * FOOTNOTE: This being true at &quot;each turn&quot; (as they say). Part 2. If we cannot &quot;keep track of&quot; all the contents of the Memories, which contextualize a given type of situation, then how would we be able to find, in at least some of these circumstances what I say there may be : the new observable &quot;concretes&quot; which are part-and-partial of/at the inception of a new ways of thinking? We need to strive to discover the more dramatic advances (these known to be species typical) -- those involving the perceptual shifts associated with QUALITATIVE STAGE/LEVELS shifts . It is a matter of fact that: WE DO have QUALITATIVE cognitive (conceptual and thinking) shifts AT KEY POINTS (as a species, during ontogeny) and this finding is VERY reliable. To elaborate on how this can occur: at KEY times (during child development) -- basic processes directing learning (e.g. perception then attention) necessarily involve &quot;the innate&quot; expressing itself in &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; * that, in effect, directly effects what we learn (at that moment and time). Thus, these &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; are necessary for Ethogram Theory, seeking to be a full general theory of human cognitive development; also these &quot;perceptual/attentional shifts&quot; which all humans (and likely several animals) will LITERALLY SHOW, THE start of awesome new cognitive abilities as BEING OVERT (though, again, likely subtle); these CAN be observed with the new eye-tracking technology (and computer-assisted analysis). THESE are the very directly observable overt phenomenon that are PREDICTED BY the clear empirical HYPOTHESES of Ethogram Theory. (Thus these are very empirical and completely testable hypotheses.) * FOOTNOTE: The &quot;perceptual shifts&quot;, innately-guided, are simultaneous with the learning processes involved. No nature/nurture problems in Ethogram Theory -- a matter otherwise NOT reasonably settled with respect to behavior patterns (per se) ------------------- -------------- Part 3. An Overall Science Definition: Now, a general definition of science (something you also want to &quot;hold to&quot;): ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON THAT, obvious to ALL (in a fully agreed-upon way), are necessary for best understanding later replicable overt observable circumstances AND corresponding later proximately-related key overt, observable PHENOMENON patterns ( so both &quot;sides of the equation&quot; are taken care of, so to speak ) -- BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism(s) for some linkage(s) which would be of some reasonable nature, but that may not be fully or clearly discovered YET (&lt;-- BUT _HERE_ SOME CLEAR PRINCIPLES NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND ALSO NEED TO BE INVOLVED). [ ALSO NOTE, in any case, that things on BOTH sides of &quot;the equation&quot;, cited as KEYSTONES of your science (necessary for your declared, well-grounded, and in-good-part established -- and thus widely agreed-upon -- view/approach), _MUST_ rely fully on now-present (or at the key time, present) variables that are overt and directly observable. ] ALL THAT is the minimal empiricism for science and, I believe, PROVIDES A DEFINITION FOR ALL (each and every) legitimate SCIENCE. This seems to be a full definition and yet, I think, is literally THE BROADEST, MOST- LIBERAL, justifiable DEFINITION OF SCIENCE THERE IS !

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 5,2019

Finding &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; (perceptual/attentional)

Finding &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; (perceptual/attentional) It probably has seemed quite a problem imagining where, when, and what &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; (&lt;-- eventually: perceptual/attentional) occur. One thing that may help a lot may involve devising an AI-computer method of finding the appropriate &quot;gaps&quot;/&quot;slots&quot; for finding more and using what's found -- thus then, when that works, also appropriately indicating the &quot;how&quot;. The perceptual shifts involve &quot;bothering&quot; to see more things (important things) that sometimes occur in important circumstance(s) -- types of things not processed as such before. It is like seeing more in such given important circumstance(s) , and with that the potential for seeing more broadly, more abstractly -- i.e. in terms of more rarefied TYPES of related concrete elements BOTH in and across circumstances). Now, humans would do this selectively and likely often find the utility in this innately-guided &quot;looking&quot; for more, phenomenologically, after finding a &quot;gap&quot; both in mind-space (working memory, etc.) and in the whole &quot;scene&quot; of the environmental circumstance(s). An AI computer could just notice ALL distinct, sometimes occurring phenomenon in a circumstance (or set of similar circumstances) MUCH LESS SELECTIVELY -- and seeing which elements of those sort of things are predictive and &quot;good for something&quot; * (then, of course, keeping those (storing them and putting them at higher priority), AND: also elaborating and/or generalizing ON THOSE that properly &quot;standout&quot; in a worthwhile way. (These noticed phenomenon would have to meaningfully use/subsume earlier developed elements of those circumstances (kind of as their elements) -- recall, it is in these ways cognitive development is hierarchical. (Neither humans or machines can fail to honor and hold faithful to previous good useful understanding (or at least a good part of it) -- and these would be well-incorporated, INTO any new view and, at least to an extent be PART OF IT. * FOOTNOTE: Some ways they would be &quot;good for something&quot; was indicated in the previous paragraph. ----------------- ---------------- Now, all that is left is modeling the different types of Memories and their inter-relations (and having any that are active appropriately change via simple associative types of learning). It seems you could model each of the Memories (and their relationships) in every conceivable way (all the ways you can think of) and sensible have the AI machine help assess what works and/or show what seems best to work. And, if nothing rethink your definitions. In short, and AI machine can be a massive guessing device and try many, many guess BUT IT WILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF STANDARD TO KNOW when it is &quot;right&quot; (what works) ---------------- ---------------- I have been pondering the range of &quot;things&quot; that could qualify as &quot;seeing something new&quot; for a qualitatively new stage of cognition. This could be : Seeing something essentially not at all seen before (at least in some set of important circumstances or key instances of those circumstances), now seen, and now useful for a new purpose. (Here I am talking about &quot;things&quot;/aspects not before seen, in the sense of: not in detail and/or with other details (other aspects), in those present circumstances of concern -- these &quot;things&quot; could have been seen more to some extent or in some ways in OTHER (less progressive) circumstances OR maybe not). OR Emphasizing part of what, to some extent, has already been &quot;seen&quot;, but now new important aspect(s)/features are now realized to have a new [at least sometimes] extremely noteworthy relevance to some new functionality/role in the present circumstances, or an especially important sub-set of these circumstances OR OTHERWISE, Simply putting things together in a new way which is then found useful (this could be things not only in a newly-viewed time/space (i.e. circumstance) BUT possibly across time/spaces (though this latter one requiring an advanced state of the Memories, since representation from those Memories would be what allows seeing previously more-different circumstances as related, the Memories contextualizing them as similar or related -- for some new functionality). Still, this may not be an exhaustive list of possibilities. But, in any case these are all empirical things in a strong sense: The focus IS on new directly see-able (i.e. concrete) &quot;things&quot;/aspects (fortunately for our empiricism), even when this allows for quite a range of possibilities of new things seen or things seen in more aspects OR as things seen related (similar or functionally related) across circumstances. Any of these could be seen as keys to a new level of abstraction or thinking. To think most broadly of what provides for some new &quot;seeing&quot; : it is the opening up of available &quot;mind-space&quot;, due to integration, consolidation, or development with respect to or pertaining to the &quot;older&quot; extant units of thought. All of these possibilities are in a sense seeing more, and seeing more that is concrete: all this 'seeing more' will be a directly observable thing or aspect, and directly observable things or aspects which will also be associated with at least subtle, directly-observable overt behaviors BY OTHERS (BUT, as I have said many times, these behavior pattern changes, though perhaps very subtle, should be detectable with the new eye-tracking, etc. technologies). Since they are real concrete things for the Subject (organism), they should be real, concrete things for an observer. These variations of distinct possibilities of &quot;new things see&quot; with the stage initiating &quot;perceptual shifts&quot; also have implication on the way the Memories change and (to some extent) there inter-relationship.