Re: [xmca] perception/conception etc

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

> What do others think? 
> mike

Well to me, for what it's worth, this way of talking of percepts and concepts as constructions used by individual minds sounds quite cognitivist. Where is the real world? 

I'm going to steal this wonderful quotation from an article by Tim Koschmann:

"If we shut up thought in the mind, how does it come to know reality? If we let it loose in the world, how does it preserve its virginity?"	(Jones, W.T. (1969). A history of western philosophy (2nd Ed.), vol. 3, p. 189)

...and add that since we socioculturalists know that social intercourse is crucial for ontogenesis, the second concern is not a real issue.

Martin

> 1. Object of perception
> *a1856* W. HAMILTON<http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h.html#w-hamilton>
> *Lect. Metaphysics* (1860) III. iii. 42 Whether it might not..be proper to
> introduce the term percept for the object of perception.



On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:21 PM, David Kellogg wrote:

> a) Percepts are constructions (of course, socioculturally generated) that individual minds put on perception. They are therefore representational generalizations and not abstractions of ideal relationships.
>  
> b) Concepts are constructions (of course, stored and used by individual minds) that sociocultural groups put on idealized relationships. They are therefore abstractions and not simply generalizations of percepts.

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca