Cognitive System Framework
His objective is to provide a framework to design cognitive system by elaborating a comprehensive and structured overview of the entire research area concerned with cognitive systems; referring to it as a pre-paradigmatic discipline.
He differentiates two global approaches: the cognitivist and the emergent. As the first one has its origins in cybernetics (1943-53) and is based on logical calculus immanent in nervous activity, the second one comes from the study of self-organized systems (1958), focuses on embodiment and can be refined in three subcategorizes: Connectionist, Dynamical, and Enactive.
While David Vernon is engaged in measuring up those four foregoing paradigms, it is clear that he is pushing the Enactive Systems Model forward to offer the framework by which successively richer orders of cognitive capability can be achieved, and by which the system itself will becomes part of an existing world of meaning (ontogeny) or shapes a new one (phylogeny).
Read more about this topic: David Vernon (professor)
Famous quotes containing the words cognitive, system and/or framework:
“Ideas are so much flat psychological surface unless some mirrored matter gives them cognitive lustre. This is why as a pragmatist I have so carefully posited ‘reality’ ab initio, and why throughout my whole discussion, I remain an epistemologist realist.”
—William James (1842–1910)
“The violent illiteracies of the graffiti, the clenched silence of the adolescent, the nonsense cries from the stage-happening, are resolutely strategic. The insurgent and the freak-out have broken off discourse with a cultural system which they despise as a cruel, antiquated fraud. They will not bandy words with it. Accept, even momentarily, the conventions of literate linguistic exchange, and you are caught in the net of the old values, of the grammars that can condescend or enslave.”
—George Steiner (b. 1929)
“Most young black females learn to be suspicious and critical of feminist thinking long before they have any clear understanding of its theory and politics.... Without rigorously engaging feminist thought, they insist that racial separatism works best. This attitude is dangerous. It not only erases the reality of common female experience as a basis for academic study; it also constructs a framework in which differences cannot be examined comparatively.”
—bell hooks (b. c. 1955)