Brains and theories of cognition

Cijadrachon cijadra at
Thu Nov 26 16:10:40 EST 1998

garyjaz at (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

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
Define cognition.

> that
>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.

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

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list