Brains and theories of cognition

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Thu Nov 26 16:10:40 EST 1998


garyjaz at globaleyes.net (Gary Jasdzewski) wrote:

>I am doing some research on the intersection of neuroscience and second
>language acquisition.
Don't get why you need it for that.

>a.)  Most of the knowledge we are discovering about the brain and language
>comes from neuroimaging techniques. 
Mine comes from having tried to speak without the language structurer
and what it (not) did after a concussion.


>c.) Learning anything like a second language involves changes in the
>microanatomical structure of the brain.  Hence to understand learning we
>need to look at the smaller levels of the brain. 
Then you could say that for a lot.
Do you think it will make it easier to pronounce a German "ch" if you
knew  your brain better?! 

Or that the language structurer will be ever that much better?

>better learning environments that are suited to our computational
>abilities.

Nature, that is what they were meant to computer and vibe with.


>Also, I have a question about reason d.  Can someone give me an example of
>a theory of some aspect of cognition (like vision or language, etc.)
Hae? What is cognition for you?
Obviously not thinking, but vision and language are two different ones
usually.
Define cognition.

> that
>is neurally plausible and one that is not?

Plausible:
The language structurer  (Broca's bla) at my command "sees" to that
when I type  these sentences have some structurer.

Not Plausible: 
Sentences like these not using it nor the front.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list