Also, several such functions could be superimposed in the very same spatial regions, by using by genetically distinct lines of cells that interact mainly among themselves.
Later Kant claims that our minds must start with some rules like “Every change must have a cause.” Today, one might interpret this as suggesting that we’re born with frames that are equipped with slots that we tend to link to the causes of changes. In the simplest case, of course, that need could be satisfied by a link to whatever preceded the change that occurred; in later years we could learn to refine those links.
There is more discussion of this in web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/SymbolicVs.Connectionist.html.
Daniel Dennett, in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. A similar premise was prevalent before the dawn of modern genetics: that every sperm already contained a perfectly formed little personage. However, in Brainstorms, 1978, Daniel Dennett goes on to point out that, “Homunculi are bogeymen only if they duplicate entire the talents they are rung in to explain. If one can get a team or committee of relatively ignorant, narrow-minded, blind homunculi to produce the intelligent behavior of the whole, this is progress.”
Here we use “Model of X” as in §4-3 to mean any structure or process that one can use to answer some questions about X.
We’ll review some traditional ‘unified theories of psychology in §§Models Of Mind.
“The Trouble With Psychological Darwinism” at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/fodo01_.html
See http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/witforwisdom.html
Greg Egan Diaspora, Millennium, 1998, ISBN 0-75280-925-3
Daniel Dennett in 1988, Times Literary Supplement, 16-22 ix.
Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, (1933).
Ref: Adapted from an essay by Bertram Forer in http://skepdic.com/coldread.html
See Shawn Carlson’s double-blind study of this in Nature, Dec. 5, 1985.
Thus Einstein’s E=Mc2 was only a small variation of Newton’s E=Mv2, but led to major changes in the ways that we then could understand the world.
