In article <FAIN.95Feb23215917 at cyboscine.etho.caltech.edu>,
Dan Fain <fain at etho.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3i5dj3$29c at ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> mcnerney at ix.netcom.com (Gerald McNerney) writes:
>>> According to Kant, these modes reside in our understanding. Anything we
>> understand must conform to these categories.
>>>> If this is so, then there must exist some mechanism of understanding
>> which forms these categories. It would be a set of circuit structures,
>> or chemical messengers or some other neural mechanism that causes this.
>> Is there anything in neuroscience that resembles this, that could
>> account for either the 12 categories of the understanding, or the space
>> and time modes of perception?
>>This metatheory would have to be predictive at lower levels of
>abstraction in order to be tied to neural function. For example, it
>might predict that people would not make certain distinctions, or
>formulate certain thoughts. This would be just a starting point, and
>it would be within the realm of cognitive science (see sci.cognitive)
>or symbolic artificial intelligence (see comp.ai.philosophy).
>>Even if this theory could be verified through psychological
>experiment, it would be quite hard to relate it to low-level brain
>mechanisms. For example, phonemes may be thought of as atomic units
>of language--yet no one has explained their perception in terms of
>neurobiology.
>>Dan Fain
>Caltech
That (perception of phonemes in terms of neurobiology) would be a
really facinating line of research. Are you absolutely certain that
no one has look at this?
--
Philip "Chris" Nicholls Department of Anthropology
Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies SUNY Albany
University of Ediacara pn8886 at cnsunix.albany.edu
"Semper Alouatta"
