Home > Meeting Topics and Material, News Stories > Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News, 6 Sept 13

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News, 6 Sept 13

We finished last week talking about the Cambridge Declaration –due to the their conclusion that there was convergent evidence that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states … – it has been our (Capt Amerika) position that to really answer questions like this we need a theory of consciousness – it is also our (Capt Amerika) position that (similar to the Cambridge Declaration) that the answer does NOT lie in the cortex or no cortex and we (Capt Amerika) don’t worry about neurological correlates of consciousness but on a set of processing principles that potentially define the representational characteristics and the deliberation approaches for the systems of systems that make up natures cognition solutions that include consciousness. We will have a discussion on these positions this week centered around our recent compilation of tenets associated with those fundamental laws (tenets) that will be the common framework that will be the backbone of our Theory of Consciousness.

On a related topic there is an article provided to us by our colleague Robert Patterson – ‘dual process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate’ by Evans and Stanovich – from association for psychological sci 8(3) 223-241, 2013, Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic
version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory.

Weekly QUEST Discussion Topics and News 6 Sept 2013

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: