Brains and theories of cognition
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
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
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
>is neurally plausible and one that is not?
The language structurer (Broca's bla) at my command "sees" to that
when I type these sentences have some structurer.
Sentences like these not using it nor the front.
More information about the Neur-sci