Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Clues on how mind works

Expand Messages
  • Don Zimmerman
    ... DWZ: This is interesting and convincing. I have the impression that the general plan of analysis and the interplay of neurological and psychological events
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "tjarvile" <timo.jarvilehto@...> wrote:

      > The main problem in the traditional linear and hierarchical processing model of reading is that it conflates psychological and neurophysiologic concepts. The psychological task analysis aims at describing the sequence of operations necessary for the accomplishment of the task. Such an analysis,however, tells nothing of the temporal order of the realization of different task components by the nervous system. In most models these psychological operations are presented as boxes following the presentation of the stimulus and its peripheral processing. It is implied that the events in the nervous system occur in the same order, but this is a non-sequitur. The temporal order of the psychological operations may be different from that of the neural processes following the stimulation of the receptors. When reading,
      > the S has not to wait for events in the environment, but the knowledge of the structure of the task makes possible a variety of anticipatory neural processes vital to the task before it begins, which are incorporated into its accomplishment. Already before any stimulus is presented by the experimenter, a set of systems is formed that is only completed by the presented experimental material. Hence, when starting, the reader is not an empty bag to be filled with the information from the text, but is actively searching
      > what the writer has to say.
      >
      > On the basis of the present results the process of reading could be described as follows. The task of the subject is to read the text in order to understand its meaning. The subject is therefore engaged in this task by trying to figure out what the writer of the text is going to say. This means that he has to produce the text himself, and the fixations act only as control variables which modulate the process of meaning generation and confirm the anticipatory organization. The fixations do not feed the content of the words into a "speech processor", but rather they confirm the continuous process of formation of meaning and control the production of speech created by the subject. If fixations just modulate the ongoing speech process, then it is understandable why fixation speech interval may be as short as simple reaction time.


      DWZ:
      This is interesting and convincing. I have the impression that the general plan of analysis and the interplay of neurological and psychological events in this study could profitably be applied to many other psychological processes where linear sequences of steps have not proved to be very informative.

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
    • tjarvile
      The information processing model of reading predicts that the interval between the fixation of the eyes to a word and its uttering should be almost 1000 ms.
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 30, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The information processing model of reading predicts that the interval between the fixation of the eyes to a word and its uttering should be almost 1000 ms. Our experimental measurements, however, challenge this theory, because this interval may be as short as simple reaction time. This means that many processes assumed to occur after the presentation of the stimulus are, in fact, recruited already in advance.

        In the framework of the theory of the organism-environment system, the inscriptions on paper do not act as "word or sentence stimuli" to be analyzed and interpreted by the brain in a linear fashion, but the inscriptions are rather means for creating words and sentences as a result of their joining to the pre-existing organization of the organism-environment system. These inscriptions have no meaning as such, as little as single pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, and they have significance only when they become constituents of the organism-environment system.

        Thus, the words and sentences do not exist on paper to be transferred into the brain, but they are results of the reorganization of the whole organism-environment system, including its history of experience and cultural connections. The written text is then simply included in the anticipatory organization leading to the result, to the formation of the personal meaning or to the spoken word when reading aloud.

        This also means that "reading" cannot be explained solely on the basis of biological concepts, but it is essentially a social phenomenon. Reading doesn't happen in the brain, but in a social and cultural context. The neurons do not "read" or carry out any linguistic operations, but they are organized in behavioral systems that make the cooperation between the writer and reader possible, leading to the understanding of the text. "The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think" (Edwin Schlossberg).

        Wiht knid reagdrs,
        Timo

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
        >
        > One theory should be as good as another here in the absence of any biological basis for the explanations offerred. "The temporal order of the psychological operations may be different from that of the neural processes following the stimulation of the receptors." -- or it may not, since receptor-ligand binding is not a consideration for the neural processing. In such cases, even Edgar's theory should be considered in the same light as those who have expertise in such things. Or, are we just joking here?
        >  
        > Jim
        >  
        > --- On Fri, 9/30/11, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
        > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Clues on how mind works
        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 10:02 AM
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        > My theory, see my additional post of a little while ago, is in general agreement with Timo's findings.
        >
        >
        > Edgar
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:25 AM, tjarvile wrote:
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        > We have studied these effects in Finnish when using normal, scrambled and continuous text. Here is an abstract:
        >
        > Abstract
        > Eye movement characteristics and duration of reading were studied when subjects were reading aloud from 1) normal text; 2) scrambled text with letters within the word mixed; continuous text with spaces between the words omitted. Fixation-speech interval (i.e. the interval between the first fixation to a word and the start of speech) was also measured. The results did not support the standard linear information processing model of reading, where reading the scrambled text should be associated with changes in the eye movement pattern and slower reading as compared with normal or continuous text. Instead, the most conspicuous changes in relation to normal reading were associated with continuous text. Fixation-speech ranged from 200 ms to several seconds, being shortest with the normal text. The results support the theory of reading aloud as an anticipatory and continuous process of meaning generation,in which visual fixation confirms and culminates rather
        > than initiates the process.
        > (From Jarvilehto et al. J. Transf. Geom, 2008)
        >
        > And this is how we see that "the mind works" on this basis:
        >
        > The main problem in the traditional linear and hierarchical processing model of reading is that it conflates psychological and neurophysiologic concepts. The psychological task analysis aims at describing the sequence of operations necessary for the accomplishment of the task. Such an analysis,however, tells nothing of the temporal order of the realization of different task components by the nervous system. In most models these psychological operations are presented as boxes following the presentation of the stimulus and its peripheral processing. It is implied that the events in the nervous system occur in the same order, but this is a non-sequitur. The temporal order of the psychological operations may be different from that of the neural processes following the stimulation of the receptors. When reading,
        > the S has not to wait for events in the environment, but the knowledge of the structure of the task makes possible a variety of anticipatory neural processes vital to the task before it begins, which are incorporated into its accomplishment. Already before any stimulus is presented by the experimenter, a set of systems is formed that is only completed by the presented experimental material. Hence, when starting, the reader is not an empty bag to be filled with the information from the text, but is actively searching
        > what the writer has to say.
        >
        > On the basis of the present results the process of reading could be described as follows. The task of the subject is to read the text in order to understand its meaning. The subject is therefore engaged in this task by trying to figure out what the writer of the text is going to say. This means that he has to produce the text himself, and the fixations act only as control variables which modulate the process of meaning generation and confirm the anticipatory organization. The fixations do not feed the content of the words into a "speech processor", but rather they confirm the continuous process of formation of meaning and control the production of speech created by the subject. If fixations just modulate the ongoing speech process, then it is understandable why fixation speech interval may be as short as simple reaction time.
        >
        > Timo Jarvilehto
        >
        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Corsini" <sjcarc@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Does this work in languages other than English -
        > >
        > > I can read it and make sense of it with comparative ease but this is about
        > > the 20th time I've seen it this month
        > >
        > > Its similar to being asked to "tr rdng nglsh wtht ny vwls n ny f th sntncs"
        > >
        > > SJC
        > > Pickering Brook WA
        > >
        > > .
        > >
        > > _____
        > >
        > > From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
        > > Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 12:07 AM
        > > To: seeking-The-Truth@yahoogroups.com;
        > > evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com; fUTUROLOGY_D@yahoogroups.com;
        > > SPACETIMEandCONSCIOUSNESS@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [evol-psych] Clues on how mind works
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Comment: Clues on how mind works. The mind seems to store words via pattern
        > > matching of first & last letters but not the order of other letters so much
        > > and certainly doesn't store words as exact sequences of letters. Or rather
        > > that the pattern matching at this level is sufficient to store meanings even
        > > when the details of exact spelling can be retrieved they seem to be stored
        > > separately.
        > >
        > >
        > > Edgar
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo
        > >
        > > hvae a sgtrane mnid too
        > >
        > > Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny
        > >
        > > 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
        > >
        > > I cdnuolt blveiee taht I
        > >
        > > cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd
        > >
        > > waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the
        > >
        > > hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to
        > >
        > > a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr
        > >
        > > in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht
        > > the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
        > >
        > > The rset can be a taotl mses
        > >
        > > and you can sitll raed it
        > >
        > > whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid
        > >
        > > deos not raed ervey lteter
        > >
        > > by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh
        > >
        > > and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
        > >
        > > If
        > >
        > > you can raed tihs forwrad it
        > >
        >
      • james kohl
        Thank you, Timo.   The context of the organism-environment system places it into the neurophysiological realm, where genetically predisposed organization of
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you, Timo.
           
          The context of the organism-environment system places it into the neurophysiological realm, where genetically predisposed organization of evolved mammalian neuronal systems precedes activation by sensory stimuli from the environment. An across-species affective neuroscience approach might be used to determine how decoding of primal affective experiences associated with visual input in humans and related animals collectively results in our ability to use language to inform others, in writing, about the difference between an apple and a pear, or between a male and a female. The primal affective experiences in this context would be associated with food odors and social odors making the result consistent across species without the need for conscious perception used to decipher written thoughts. The meaning of written words would then be a function of anticipation based on life's experiences, which decrease processing time and add meaning to experiences associated with survival of the species.
           
          But, shall we wait to learn more about Edgar's opinion before further attempts are made towards meaningful discussion?
           
          James V. Kohl


          --- On Fri, 9/30/11, tjarvile <tjarvile@...> wrote:

          From: tjarvile <tjarvile@...>
          Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Clues on how mind works
          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 3:18 PM

           


          The information processing model of reading predicts that the interval between the fixation of the eyes to a word and its uttering should be almost 1000 ms. Our experimental measurements, however, challenge this theory, because this interval may be as short as simple reaction time. This means that many processes assumed to occur after the presentation of the stimulus are, in fact, recruited already in advance.

          In the framework of the theory of the organism-environment system, the inscriptions on paper do not act as "word or sentence stimuli" to be analyzed and interpreted by the brain in a linear fashion, but the inscriptions are rather means for creating words and sentences as a result of their joining to the pre-existing organization of the organism-environment system. These inscriptions have no meaning as such, as little as single pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, and they have significance only when they become constituents of the organism-environment system.

          Thus, the words and sentences do not exist on paper to be transferred into the brain, but they are results of the reorganization of the whole organism-environment system, including its history of experience and cultural connections. The written text is then simply included in the anticipatory organization leading to the result, to the formation of the personal meaning or to the spoken word when reading aloud.

          This also means that "reading" cannot be explained solely on the basis of biological concepts, but it is essentially a social phenomenon. Reading doesn't happen in the brain, but in a social and cultural context. The neurons do not "read" or carry out any linguistic operations, but they are organized in behavioral systems that make the cooperation between the writer and reader possible, leading to the understanding of the text. "The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think" (Edwin Schlossberg).

          Wiht knid reagdrs,
          Timo

          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
          >
          > One theory should be as good as another here in the absence of any biological basis for the explanations offerred. "The temporal order of the psychological operations may be different from that of the neural processes following the stimulation of the receptors." -- or it may not, since receptor-ligand binding is not a consideration for the neural processing. In such cases, even Edgar's theory should be considered in the same light as those who have expertise in such things. Or, are we just joking here?
          >  
          > Jim
          >  
          > --- On Fri, 9/30/11, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
          > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Clues on how mind works
          > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 10:02 AM
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          > My theory, see my additional post of a little while ago, is in general agreement with Timo's findings.
          >
          >
          > Edgar
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:25 AM, tjarvile wrote:
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          > We have studied these effects in Finnish when using normal, scrambled and continuous text. Here is an abstract:
          >
          > Abstract
          > Eye movement characteristics and duration of reading were studied when subjects were reading aloud from 1) normal text; 2) scrambled text with letters within the word mixed; continuous text with spaces between the words omitted. Fixation-speech interval (i.e. the interval between the first fixation to a word and the start of speech) was also measured. The results did not support the standard linear information processing model of reading, where reading the scrambled text should be associated with changes in the eye movement pattern and slower reading as compared with normal or continuous text. Instead, the most conspicuous changes in relation to normal reading were associated with continuous text. Fixation-speech ranged from 200 ms to several seconds, being shortest with the normal text. The results support the theory of reading aloud as an anticipatory and continuous process of meaning generation,in which visual fixation confirms and culminates rather
          > than initiates the process.
          > (From Jarvilehto et al. J. Transf. Geom, 2008)
          >
          > And this is how we see that "the mind works" on this basis:
          >
          > The main problem in the traditional linear and hierarchical processing model of reading is that it conflates psychological and neurophysiologic concepts. The psychological task analysis aims at describing the sequence of operations necessary for the accomplishment of the task. Such an analysis,however, tells nothing of the temporal order of the realization of different task components by the nervous system. In most models these psychological operations are presented as boxes following the presentation of the stimulus and its peripheral processing. It is implied that the events in the nervous system occur in the same order, but this is a non-sequitur. The temporal order of the psychological operations may be different from that of the neural processes following the stimulation of the receptors. When reading,
          > the S has not to wait for events in the environment, but the knowledge of the structure of the task makes possible a variety of anticipatory neural processes vital to the task before it begins, which are incorporated into its accomplishment. Already before any stimulus is presented by the experimenter, a set of systems is formed that is only completed by the presented experimental material. Hence, when starting, the reader is not an empty bag to be filled with the information from the text, but is actively searching
          > what the writer has to say.
          >
          > On the basis of the present results the process of reading could be described as follows. The task of the subject is to read the text in order to understand its meaning. The subject is therefore engaged in this task by trying to figure out what the writer of the text is going to say. This means that he has to produce the text himself, and the fixations act only as control variables which modulate the process of meaning generation and confirm the anticipatory organization. The fixations do not feed the content of the words into a "speech processor", but rather they confirm the continuous process of formation of meaning and control the production of speech created by the subject. If fixations just modulate the ongoing speech process, then it is understandable why fixation speech interval may be as short as simple reaction time.
          >
          > Timo Jarvilehto
          >
          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Corsini" <sjcarc@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Does this work in languages other than English -
          > >
          > > I can read it and make sense of it with comparative ease but this is about
          > > the 20th time I've seen it this month
          > >
          > > Its similar to being asked to "tr rdng nglsh wtht ny vwls n ny f th sntncs"
          > >
          > > SJC
          > > Pickering Brook WA
          > >
          > > .
          > >
          > > _____
          > >
          > > From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          > > [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edgar Owen
          > > Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 12:07 AM
          > > To: seeking-The-Truth@yahoogroups.com;
          > > evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com; fUTUROLOGY_D@yahoogroups.com;
          > > SPACETIMEandCONSCIOUSNESS@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [evol-psych] Clues on how mind works
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Comment: Clues on how mind works. The mind seems to store words via pattern
          > > matching of first & last letters but not the order of other letters so much
          > > and certainly doesn't store words as exact sequences of letters. Or rather
          > > that the pattern matching at this level is sufficient to store meanings even
          > > when the details of exact spelling can be retrieved they seem to be stored
          > > separately.
          > >
          > >
          > > Edgar
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo
          > >
          > > hvae a sgtrane mnid too
          > >
          > > Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny
          > >
          > > 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
          > >
          > > I cdnuolt blveiee taht I
          > >
          > > cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd
          > >
          > > waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the
          > >
          > > hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to
          > >
          > > a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr
          > >
          > > in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht
          > > the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
          > >
          > > The rset can be a taotl mses
          > >
          > > and you can sitll raed it
          > >
          > > whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid
          > >
          > > deos not raed ervey lteter
          > >
          > > by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh
          > >
          > > and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
          > >
          > > If
          > >
          > > you can raed tihs forwrad it
          > >
          >

        • james kohl
          Excerpted from below: DWZ wrote:   I have the impression that the general plan of analysis and the interplay of neurological and psychological events in this
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Excerpted from below: DWZ wrote:
             
            "I have the impression that the general plan of analysis and the interplay of neurological and psychological events in this study could profitably be applied to many other psychological processes where linear sequences of steps have not proved to be very informative."
             
            Your impression suggests that you would be interested in learning about the principles of biology that require levels of organization to understand evolutionary psychology. The linear sequences of steps in this context is gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system which is the only pathway that links sensory input from our environment directly to evolved behaivor in mammals. However, for the evolution of sexual reproduction this requires the Creation of novel cell types. Thus, the requirement for the Creation of novel cell types (such as those that require 1532 genes each for the mammalian placenta) is likely to short-circuit your understanding of .... well, everything that has evolved, including reproductive and/or non-reproductive sexual behavior.
             
            James V. Kohl


            --- On Fri, 9/30/11, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:

            From: Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...>
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Clues on how mind works
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 1:58 PM

             
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "tjarvile" <timo.jarvilehto@...> wrote:

            > The main problem in the traditional linear and hierarchical processing model of reading is that it conflates psychological and neurophysiologic concepts. The psychological task analysis aims at describing the sequence of operations necessary for the accomplishment of the task. Such an analysis,however, tells nothing of the temporal order of the realization of different task components by the nervous system. In most models these psychological operations are presented as boxes following the presentation of the stimulus and its peripheral processing. It is implied that the events in the nervous system occur in the same order, but this is a non-sequitur. The temporal order of the psychological operations may be different from that of the neural processes following the stimulation of the receptors. When reading,
            > the S has not to wait for events in the environment, but the knowledge of the structure of the task makes possible a variety of anticipatory neural processes vital to the task before it begins, which are incorporated into its accomplishment. Already before any stimulus is presented by the experimenter, a set of systems is formed that is only completed by the presented experimental material. Hence, when starting, the reader is not an empty bag to be filled with the information from the text, but is actively searching
            > what the writer has to say.
            >
            > On the basis of the present results the process of reading could be described as follows. The task of the subject is to read the text in order to understand its meaning. The subject is therefore engaged in this task by trying to figure out what the writer of the text is going to say. This means that he has to produce the text himself, and the fixations act only as control variables which modulate the process of meaning generation and confirm the anticipatory organization. The fixations do not feed the content of the words into a "speech processor", but rather they confirm the continuous process of formation of meaning and control the production of speech created by the subject. If fixations just modulate the ongoing speech process, then it is understandable why fixation speech interval may be as short as simple reaction time.

            DWZ:
            This is interesting and convincing. I have the impression that the general plan of analysis and the interplay of neurological and psychological events in this study could profitably be applied to many other psychological processes where linear sequences of steps have not proved to be very informative.

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.