Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!nosc!humu!uhccux!todd
From: todd@uhccux.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.med,comp.ai,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Taking AI models and applying them to biology...
Message-ID: <583@uhccux.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 05:33:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: uhccux.583
Posted: Wed Jun 10 05:33:34 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 05:09:56 EDT
References: <622@unicus.UUCP> <836@pixar.UUCP>
Reply-To: todd@uhccux.UUCP (The Perplexed Wiz)
Organization: U. of Hawaii, Manoa (Honolulu)
Lines: 58
Xref: utgpu sci.bio:358 sci.med:2064 comp.ai:469 sci.misc:276

In article <836@pixar.UUCP> davel@pixar.UUCP (David Longerbeam) writes:
>In article <622@unicus.UUCP>, craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) writes:
>> This description of the human memory system, though cloaked in vaguer terms,
>> corresponds more or less one-to-one with the traditional computer
>> architecture we all know and love.  To wit:
>  	[description deleted]
>> At least this far, this theory appears to owe a lot to computer science.
>> Granted, there is lots of empirical evidence in favour, but we all know
>> how a little evidence can go far too far towards developing an analogy.

>One of my philosophy professors in college offered the observation that
>models for the human mind have always seemed to correspond to the most
>advanced form of technology at that given point in history.  He could 

It's true that theories of cognition often reflect the current popular
technology.  But before we start arguing current theories as reflections
of computer science and physiology, I suggest we at least have some
common starting point for our discussion.

I don't want to suggest that you need a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology
to discuss the subject, but you might want to consider reading one
of the many intro texts on the subject before leaping to any speculations
(wild or otherwise :-).

An intro text I often recommend to people with a more than casual
interest in cognition is:

	Anderson, John (1985).
		Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. (2nd edition)
		New York:  W.H. Freeman and Co.

If you are interested in a historical perspective of psychological
research, I suggest you take a peek at:

	Hearst, Eliot (Ed.) (1979).
		The First Century of Experimental Psychology.
		Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Pub.

And finally, though I don't always agree with what Richard Gregory has
to say, I always enjoy hearing or reading his ideas and theories.  His
"Mind in Science" is an interesting speculative book.

	Gregory, Richard (1981).
		Mind in Science: A History of Explanations in
		Psychology and Physics.
		Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press

Well, I hope we at least have some common reference point now...

Todd Ogasawara
	"With a good wind behind me and and a lot of luck...
		Ph.D. in Psychology later this year :-)"

-- 
Todd Ogasawara, U. of Hawaii Computing Center
UUCP:		{ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!todd
ARPA:		uhccux!todd@nosc.MIL
INTERNET:	todd@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU