Chemicals; environmental protection products; electronic process Gifts; printing process; e-commerce; domestic and foreign trade; Agent, etc. under which a number of autonomous production and processing chain of the cooperative enterprise of environmental protection products; operations in markets around the world; enterprises! To add to the global environmental protection should be a strength; industry range: non-woven; non-woven products; environmentally friendly products; advertising products! Clothing; footwear; toys; leather; gifts; die; green bags, woven bags, green bags. All kinds of gifts website: email: sales@doulailii.com; service
Summary : philosophical hermeneutics - is understood to explain the theory - some of the issues under study, but also cognitive science to answer. People's understanding of the nature of our way to access and organize knowledge, language and memory in them the role of conscious and unconscious knowledge, relationships, and how we understand others and so on, answers to these questions, you can build from hermeneutics and between cognitive science, cross-platform. Although most of the time and hermeneutics of natural science is relative, but between them there are some obvious access, making the study could help explain the cognitive science, and vice versa.
Keywords: Understanding social cognition to explain the prototype of cognitive empathy icon
usually defined as people learn to explain the interpretation of the theory and practice. As a discipline, hermeneutics has a long and complex history, it was originally concerned with the literary, religious and legal texts appropriate explanation. In the 20th century, expanded the scope of hermeneutics, and including such a thought: with Taylor (Taylor, C.) the words, people are [1] (pp. 45-76) and text to explain the modalities at the school is relatively narrow, from Heidegger (Heidegger, M.), Gadamer (Gadamer, H.-G.), and Rickel (Ricoeur, P.) ① philosophy developed by thinkers such as hermeneutics, to understand why people made possible problems - not how should we explain or understand something, but rather to explain and understand what, how to play the role of problem.
of the 19th century philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (Dilthey, W.), the interpretation of science and scientific discipline (including the emerging issue of Psychological Science) is very different. Not entirely to say that psychology tries to explain the causal relationship between living beings (human animals) in natural behavior, in contrast, Dilthey believes that the discipline of hermeneutics is to use social beings (human persons) experience and motivation to understand their behavior. Inner life is not an order by a series of mechanical (starts and stops) form, but are interwoven into a certain structure of the continuum (Zusammenhang). [2] Thus, Dilthey mean is, for any part of the understanding, must in other parts of its overall relationship to the inner. Needs some explanation in the text to find the same in different types of structures, not just words of the mechanical connection, but also between the whole and part to find a meaningful consistency. Meaning and social person in the text both cases, the whole of them contain a historical dimension - who I am. Or, in the understanding of text, not simply observe my actions or words as the absolute significance of the moment, because the left past practice and meaning of the text that is not found the meaning of these things (meaning) and the mean (significance) of the. As Gadamer says, to understand things, not to cause the existing way of existing in the results of my actions or words in the. [3] (p. 224)
hermeneutics and natural science to be understood as the difference between psychology or, more broadly, between hermeneutics and science that differences in Dilthey has a complex history before and after. Of course, Dilthey on the understanding (Verstehen) and description (Erkl?rung) of the distinction is useful. For example, Habermas to use this distinction to define the depth of hermeneutics he said, that is the meaning of a particular interpretation of social practice, learning how to understand and present these practices combine scientific explanation; to the relevant participants in these practices means and the reasons behind the potential (which may be economic reality, it may be to maintain a power relationship) together. [4] (pp. 294-319)
to the depth of the model for hermeneutics, Habermas's critique of ideology borrowed from Marx and Freud's psychoanalytic model. Rickel interpret the same way Freud (Freud, A.) in the. [5] Freud, both on the psychological analysis of interpersonal practice, the interpretation of style, but also explain the science of the unconscious mechanism of Parapsychology (metapsychology). If we apply this model to explain the contemporary study of consciousness research, we seek are two aspects: first-person experience on the subject and its implication to the everyday understanding of life; of the living brain and how to generate specific This experience shows the neural sciences. Here, I discuss the hermeneutic focus on this model, but I put it simply referred to as ①
this model, there is a clear tension. On the one hand, to explain the distinction between science and science there, as we note the distinction between understanding and have seen. On the other hand, the model requires an explanation and science play a role in of consciousness,UGG shoes, cognition, and human behavior has a more complete grasp.
in the interpretation of hermeneutics and science have a real confrontation between the Ganzhi, will find this a deeper tension: the people often have the impression that if we use (doing) to explain science, science can not be used, and vice versa. But I think there is no problem. If you and the scientists at the frontiers Gezi (practicing scientists) to discuss, find that a Jiadamoer the first to admit that they and others say is an obvious fact. Science itself is a hermeneutic practice. In other words, scientists do is explain to them under the scientific tradition and the specific issues they raised, their explanation is a bias, but in a very productive manner shown. Description and understanding, as are explained. For example, the interpretation of quantitative data, relying on a certain level of development of the history of science, scientists rely on qualitative judgments, includes such judgments: scientists on the meaning of community and a foundation of their audience, they way of interpreting the data is important and valuable.
here, I would like to explore is that this seemingly obvious opposition, often have little in common that the two disciplines. On the one hand, hermeneutics has been traditionally understood as the interpretation of the text, or in the social and historical context of human understanding; the other hand, cognitive science, computing or be understood as cognitive neuroscience description of the terms. In view of this, I want to say is:
(1) revealed hermeneutics and cognitive science does not actually reveal the opposite - in fact, these two subjects are identical in a lot of things a;
(2) help to explain some aspects of learning in cognitive science and awareness of science;
(3) cognitive science help explain some aspects of the field.
I intend to discuss three issues through the following to support my point of view:
● How do we recognize objects? That is how we know and understand the world in a variety of objects? The answer to this question through to show hermeneutics and cognitive science in fact does not confrontation.
● How do we know situations? That the actual task or for all types in a variety of situations, understanding how we actually handle it? On to show that the answer to this question will help explain the science of cognitive science.
● How do we understand others? The answer to this question through to show that cognitive science help explain the science.
one cycle, icons and prototypes
how we understand and recognize the object? To say the least, to understand an important aspect of the object, relates to our situation to them and appropriate to link capacity; on the other hand relates to our ability to classify them. According to hermeneutic circle, we can find the answers to these questions. Hermeneutic circle on a basic statement is that all understanding has a circular structure, please note that the structure is not the kind of logical vicious circle. Think of a traditional way is to understand the situation when the text: To understand the significance of a particular paragraph, it needs to link the text as a whole; to understand the text as a whole, need to consider each part is what constitutes the meaning. Since the 18th century, numerous theorists also insist that, to further understanding of a text, you need to put it to larger historical whole, and this includes the whole of history itself, his social, his economic status, and so knowledge. Only the X into the appropriate context, I can understand it; only when I understand the X, I can better understand the situation. Obviously, this applies to any object in the understanding of the situation. When I try to understand something, only it and the things I already know the link - that is, put it in context I am familiar with, I can develop an understanding of it.
course, this may mean that I will be misunderstood in this object. Naturally, for something I already know, and I often try to put a new object of the old box (pigeon hole) in, I am biased. However, if learning is to progress, then follow the final inevitable. As Dilthey said, [2] (p. 227) through a dialectic, the process of coming and going, or under the guidance of teachers, I eventually find the right situation, and gradually reached some acceptable understanding. In doing so, I was able to identify the similarities between the object and other objects, and say its type.
to this point, it is just and cognitive psychology, the From Bartlett (Bartlett, FC) to Jean Piaget (Piaget, J.) and then to Anderson (Anderson, RC) and other theorists, have recourse to the icon view of cognition may be amended to show how we step A further understanding of the object. Shown that this concept is that we already have that knowledge is not formed by a number of separate information, but organized into a number of patterns in the acquisition of new knowledge, these patterns can be extracted and used. We can use these patterns to new information or icon Importantly, the new information also contributed to the icon previously set up changes; icon to change their own or As Anderson points out, the icon and the interaction between subject and object, we construct an interpretation. He used terms like hermeneutics [6] (p. 423) That is, if we do not resort to interpretation to some extent to promote the understanding of the framework, the object is meaningless.
icon in the assimilation of the role played by the new meaning is conservative; but the fact that they have a relatively malleable, means that we can adjust them to adapt to very new information - here, we could talk about the imagination The importance of force, but we intend to come back to the next part of the discussion. In cognitive science, the icon is on how to generate, and how that is best illustrated with some interesting issues such as controversy. Picture shows the potential structure is calculated it? Used to illustrate the plasticity of the brain plasticity of the icon is the best way? In the framework of specific actions, we should generate the icon as it? No matter how to answer these questions, they are a potential mechanism to clarify the issue, and these mechanisms allows us - as the pursuit of understanding, like - learning to be possible to enter the hermeneutic circle.
objects vary, but in some sense, they are likely to have some common characteristics. This difference and common features will help us explain and understand the object. Developed in cognitive science, a theory - Prototype theory and hermeneutics has a very consistent manner.
some of the object is the prototype - we are well aware of them; they contain relatively clear boundaries, or the main features of a typical example. For example, We can believe that pigeons are typical examples of birds. Thus, it is a useful concept of a bird prototype. However, some birds like pigeons (eg, chicken), with pigeons as a prototype will not seize on all the characteristics of birds, or it can not serve as a typical example. Useful to outline the scope of the prototype; help clarify the differences in context and similarities. Prototype is not just a good example; the contrary, it is defined by a bunch of phenomena, some of which is the core, and some are external.
prototype into the hermeneutic circle is a path. If we set the icon as a qualified and well-structured (possibly level sequence) Domain, it is more like the prototype for significance of radial organization - this is not the most appropriate, most of them there is still a matter of degree. Prototype also takes into account a relative. For example,Discount UGG boots, in some cultures, the dove is more like birds than chickens or penguins prototype. But we can imagine, mostly in the chicken or penguin where what the situation will be different. And consistent with Gadamer's hermeneutics (Dilthey, or Schleiermacher than with the consistency of the interpretation of higher learning), prototype theory suggests, the explanation will be more uncertain, objectivity would be less than fully and there will be more fully understood the extent of the problem. The significance of the object will be difficult to fixed die, it will rely more on the situation. Compared with the frame to cover, Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein, L.) of the
can be seen here, in cognitive science and there is no opposition between hermeneutics. Schema theory and doctrine to say, and hermeneutics said loop has a good consistency. If we put them in a run, they will enrich each other, and thus have a better understanding of cognition.
course, cognitive science, on how the prototype is generated, and how that is the best description of them and so on, there are no conclusive arguments. We should not be regarded as the prototype in the Lake Fu (Lakoff, G.) and others call [7] Is it possible to develop a prototype for the model of knowledge organized? The question on the icon and the prototype is part of a larger whole - a larger question is: Is it possible to use a strict calculation of the term to describe an objective understanding of human uncertainty and relativity? It is this problem so I think that hermeneutics can provide some support for the cognitive sciences.
Second, the calculation and understanding
even not so circumspect in logic, calculation model also means that the rigorous, precise and predictable. However, the human cognitive system is not used, and strict, play a role in determining the scope, but can be modified and the icon and play a role in a flexible prototype. This shows that people between the understanding and computational models have important differences. Here, I can learn from Dreyfus (Dreyfus, H.) on the computer can do and can not do the analysis. [8] He pointed out that computers are defined in clear and limited in scope, and rules govern the situation in the very convenient. Play chess game is a good example. Instead, the computer is not good at solving those defined in vague, uncertain situation with no description of the problem.
computers are good at memory games, mazes, word for word translation, rigid patterns of response. In these activities, the mechanical connection is important, but the significance did not occur and the associated context. Through the decision tree, the list received search (list searches), or template, you can deal with these activities. Computers are also good at simple formal activities, such as computable games (like chess characters go down), the combination of problems (a straightforward means - the purpose of the issue) and mathematics in the mechanical evidence. In these cases, the meaning is totally dominant and no context. Complex computer or even good at complex formal activities, such as chess game plan and identified in the complex interference pattern. Similarly, the significance of these cases is still dominant, but in the number of complex. For example, these activities will require the use of
However, for those involved in the daily activities of the informal situation model is not adequate. For example, poorly defined the game (such as riddles), you need to have the open structure of insight problems (can not be simply reduced to a number of information organizations), natural language translation, identifying changes or distorted patterns. In these cases, the meaning is hidden, and highly context dependent. Some cases, no clear rules to follow. Dreyfus resort to phenomenological tradition, especially Merleau - Ponty (Merleau-Ponty, M.), and the tradition of Heidegger, to illustrate this uncertainty, the specific context and relationship with the actual situations. We can also appeal to cognitive science itself, to distinguish between two situations: one is the relationship does not have a context, a context is either a real relationship, or the context of social relations - particularly neuropsychological some research to learn. [9]
I think that is, hermeneutics beyond the reach of calculation for these situations, providing a good understanding of the model. Model in Gadamer calls As Gadamer points out, only the use of methods, is unable to complete the interpretation of this context. Gadamer back to Aristotle found a way to describe this interpretation. In the know what to do right, and how to do it. And computing the contrary, the practical wisdom is just the rules but have no context to make decisions needed. In these situations, we are faced with various possibilities of meaning, there is no ultimate principle for sorting.
Aristotle made between practical wisdom and intelligence is an important distinction. For example, in the ethical context, an immoral person, or a criminal can be very clever, but it is not practical wisdom. Smart or responsive to a natural talent; but in the most basic meaning that, the practical wisdom entirely on education or Immersion (enculturation). In particular, the practical wisdom can only be in the right social and educational background developed. According to Aristotle's meaning, it is the right person through and stay together, and learn to follow the good examples of action to gain practical wisdom. Without this informal education, a person can still be smart, but not necessarily a good man.
theory in the interpretation of where the moral character of the practical wisdom has undergone some important amendments. I think it has an important cognitive science reference. First, Gadamer explains it as a model for action, not only in the moral context that, more broadly, in the messy, uncertain, no rules, more than one correct answer hermeneutic situation is also true. [3] (pp. 21-22, 312ff) some of the recent discussion on the practical wisdom, the emphasis can not be reduced to clever at the same time, a point also stressed that the practical wisdom, including the use of agile imagination. Practical wisdom to rely on the use of intuitive insight or imagination to get from the uncertainty of human life grows itself the answer to the question. In any such case, a decision or action, not by eliminating alternatives ways to obtain accurate answers to achieve, not by following the pure reason (rule governed) computer program to achieve. In this way, it goes beyond calculations to simulate the situation.
This is not to say that hermeneutics of practical wisdom or understanding of the uncertain situation elusive. On the contrary, it belongs to the unconscious that can not be simply reduced to the level of (sub-personal) and computing the field level. In other words, it is with human consciousness and interpersonal level entirely relevant. Gadamer argued that understanding is dialogue. However, to grasp the cognitive model of computation and understanding of the practical wisdom of the exact differences between the two can not be confined to that point of Gadamer. We need to go back to Aristotle's a thought, that practical wisdom is in the informal context the social context and interaction obtained. Some things that can not be reduced to the unconscious, the calculated way the second person to the social interaction. Interaction does not mean the second person two or more interactive computing systems, or even the interaction of two brain.
Dilthey and his romantic interpretation of 19th century science colleagues, with empathy to talk about this second person interaction - that is, beyond the first-person and third-person point of view. If we examine how romantic interpretation of the way scientists talk about empathy, we will find that their appeal is to share universal human spirit. Schleiermacher (he mainly discussed the text in the subjective hermeneutics - the interpretation of divination, which is followed by an explanation beyond the rules) are optimistic that in 1819:
can say to explain by changes in persons to enter on their own, divination method attempts to directly understand the author as an individual ... ... divination is based on the assumption that people not only a unique individual, and can accept the uniqueness of others. [10] (§ 2.6)
four years later, Droysen (Droysen, J.) will hold a pessimistic tone, real people want to understand it is difficult to close:
[people] hiding wrapped themselves only with themselves and talk to God ... ... this is a way of impenetrable sanctuary. A man may well understand another person; but this is only the surface; he always put other people's behavior, speech and gesture as a number of separate moments, never really, fully understand them. [11] (pp. 126-131)
matter how we see the romantic, transcendental or theological thought - of course there is much here to think - not that that old school look is very scientific. Is not finally found the explanation here, and scientific incommensurability between the antagonistic? In the following part, I want to say on this issue, hermeneutics can draw on emerging cognitive neuroscience of some important points.
Third, to understand others
I said before, the second person can not simply describe the interaction between the interaction of two brain - or two brain reproduces something in common. I did not ignore the meaning of neuroscience. Indeed, without the participation of at least two brains, there would be no second person interaction. Cognitive neuroscience help us understand this problem, is how the mutual understanding and empathy Possible. However, this is the core purpose of hermeneutics. First, I would like to repeat what the field of neuroscience new progress I am familiar with, because they help to understand how we interact with others. Secondly, I would like to discuss how cognitive scientists explain these results.
on mirror neurons (mirror neurons) is famous in the present study. Mirror neurons in the anterior lobe of macaque monkeys (F5 area) found. There is good evidence that, in the anterior lobe and Broca's area (Broca's area) ① can find them. In the main motor to perform a specific action (motor action), the main body, and saw another goal-directed action to do the same, the mirror neurons will respond. Thus, in the visual perception of action (or dynamic expression) and the ability of a person of their first person, within the main body,UGG bailey button, feeling body between the construction of mirror neurons play a double connection (intermodal link). Galle (Gallese, V.) pointed out that such neurons contribute from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience to explain empathy. [12] In his view, empathy, or social cognition is a
it in the comments and some other explanation, let us look at some more recent discoveries that mirror neurons are not only good agreement, but also extends the research. On the following four kinds of human brain imaging studies show that activated by these tasks the corresponding region of the brain is cross: (1) in the tool action, (2) To observe the behavior of another person, (3) to stimulate another human action, (4) intended to mimic another person's actions. If I see you pick up a cup ready to drink, I do, my brain in the same area is activated. Here, we are not talking about individual neurons, but neural systems. And, when I consciously stimulate or imagine themselves in the implementation of an action, or imagine you are the implementation of the action, or for imitating an action you just completed when he was my cognitive brain regions activated, just I actually was the behavior of motor neurons activated by that area.
These mirror neurons on the neural representation and sharing of research, directly reminded of the debate in hermeneutics - that is about the nature of understanding and empathy of others. In fact, when the mind philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists discuss the theory of mind is usually what is referred to when they are entering (in most cases unwittingly) more ancient understanding and empathy on the interpretation of school debate.
people to define for our theory of mind In support of the theoretical methods of theory of mind and methods of defense between imitation, is engaged in a debate. The former view, we understand the way others relate to the use of a theoretical position: we of the other theories (implicit or explicit), to explain or predict their behavior. Usually this is called the theorists (theory theory). In contrast, imitation sent (simulation theory) is that our understanding of others to imitate others based on our ability to think and feel. For example, we essentially put itself at the position of others, to imitate in their own mind, and then infer that this standard is the other side is thinking.
now appears that mimic those in the previous discussion of cognitive neuroscience, where to find proof. Imitation is possible, because we have similar brain, the brain can be activated in an appropriate manner both mirror neurons and shared reproduction area. However, the theorists are not entirely without scientific basis. They can resort to false - belief that the test (false-belief tests), these tests show that the understanding of other people's hearts appear to relate to a theoretical standpoint, this theoretical position is in normal, non-self-centered about four years old when the children get The. Importantly, the theorists and the imitation of camp have argued that theory of mind is the main way we understand others, not just four years old, but throughout our life.
interaction theory is the theory outside the camp and sent to imitate another option. The program can also appeal to neuroscience to share about mirror neurons and the neural representation of the evidence, and a large number of developmental psychology provides evidence that infants of non-spiritual way to analyze and understand the intentions of others ability. ② this point of view to understand (if not rational then) age pushed back to infant stage, and suggests that, in our life, to understand (if not explain or predict it) the main ways than through the use of theory or simulation to within of the capability to more specific and more social (socially embedded).
provide these different positions of the different interpretations of scientific evidence, here, that the interpretation of science itself is a very attractive properties of matter. I want to emphasize is that in trying to explain how we understand others, we do not have to resort to a universal human spirit, like Schleiermacher, and Dilthey Droysen done. We now have a way to make from the perspective of hermeneutic empathy Naturalization (naturalize) the.
infants detection and improved according to the intentions of others capabilities, we can come to settlement (cash out) Schleiermacher on the divination power point of view. With this innate ability, infant body movement can be interpreted as the goal-directed movement, able to perceive others as actors. ③ This [13] see this as the ability to internalize, or non-performance of the heart, is a part of current debate.
Dilthey stressed the actions and intentions of others to understand the importance of context.
in action and make us some kind of mental content may be inferred between a conventional relationship. However, it is necessary to generate action and through action to express their state of mind, and it relies on to distinguish the living environment ... ... so, if not accompanied by the environment, objectives, means and living situation is a description of how to connect together to make , action took the lives of themselves and their situation as a background to the separate, it can not evoke the inner life from which a comprehensive description. [14] (p. 153)
Dilthey's emphasis and Terry Watson (Trevarthen, C.), who said two of the main room of the same. [15] about a year old, infants and young children to primary intersubjectivity beyond the immediacy of the kind of face to face into the common interest - the common context - the context of relationship, during which they can understand the meaning and purpose of things. Intersubjectivity
two main features, object or event can become the focus between people can be sharing ... ... and another infant interaction, beginning with the things around them referred to in the. [16] (p. 62)
18 months of infants and young children can understand what other people want. They can re-creation, to complete the unfinished body was observed, with the purpose of pointing to that behavior. As long as the right way to see adults playing with toys and playing with the disappointment of failure demonstrated that children can easily pick up the toys, adult show how to do. This understanding of action, relying on the context of common interest and the actual relationship. As we in the most practical level, their actions may be understood as the same way we understand other people's actions. In other words, we can most relevant to understand the actual level of action, often because of it and the situation is connected.
this level of understanding where in Dilthey called If, as Dilthey put it, to understand the logic of the primary may be [14] (p. 154) In these cases, the inference is not from the results to the cause. That is, in our interpretation of relations, we are not looking for a way to others why the action in some causal account. Instead, we read other people's meaning in the expression of (action, gesture, facial expression). This is the primary understanding of Dilthey in his description on the entire contents of the said. His tendency was observed on return to children, and pointed out that before the child learns to speak, it has been soaked in organized social context and objective expression of the soul of the show, all of which formed the background to understand the context of other relationships when .
on mirror neurons, shared neural representation and infant development research, provides a primary understanding of Dilthey lacks precise details. More broadly, one thing seems clear that cognitive science research and debate on the interpretation of the primary school understanding of understanding and empathy is helpful, in fact, they can make these ideas more precise.
Conclusion
First of all, I've been trying to prove, and explain the study revealed and not revealed by cognitive science opposition - in fact,UGG boots clearance, a lot of things they are consistent; Secondly, help to explain some aspects of learning in cognitive science; Third, cognitive science help explain some aspects of the field.
No comments:
Post a Comment