In cognitive psychology, there are many concepts we learn that are related to our everyday lives. These concepts include the way our brain transmits signals, the way we perceive, and the ways in which we behave. Like most concepts in psychology, there is always some dispute about what actually is causing us to think the way we do. To me, the most interesting concept in cognitive psychology is the theory of behaviorism.

John Watson first introduced the idea of behaviorism. He did not agree with analytic introspection, which was “a technique in which trained participants described their experiences and thought processes in response to a stimulus” (p. 8-9). “Watson’s goal was to eliminate the mind as a topic of study in psychology and replace it with the study of directly observable behavior” (p. 10). Behaviorism is the theory that human behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning (Google). With this definition came a term called classical conditioning, which involves pairing one stimulus with another neutral stimulus in order to change the response to the neutral stimulus (p. 10).

After introducing the term classical conditioning, a Harvard graduate student named B.F. Skinner introduced a new type of conditioning. Skinner called his idea operant conditioning, which is showing how behavior is influenced by positive or negative reinforcement.

The concept of behaviorism, in regards to classical and operant conditioning, has many aspects that are shown in everyday life or certain life experiences. For example, with classical conditioning, I can think of a person with post-traumatic stress disorder. In a war the person has been conditioned with guns and loud noises. Every time they would see a gun, a loud bang would follow and they would take cover. Eventually they are conditioned to a point where every time they see a gun, the person would take cover even without the loud bang. Operant conditioning is a bit more common in our lives. Operant conditioning can happen at school, work, a restaurant or clothing store. The point is that in all of these situations there are chances for both positive and negative reinforcement. For example, a worker who comes to work everyday on time will get a raise. Receiving the raise will positively reinforce the action of coming to work on time. If a worker were to get money taken out of his/her check for being on time, then it would negatively reinforce the worker to be late.

In conclusion, the theory of behaviorism seems to be a logical approach to the way in which humans respond to a certain stimulus. There are many examples for conditioning and can be a good way to prove how outside stimuli has an effect on human behavior.

Works Cited

Goldstein, E. Bruce (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Behaviorism. (n.d.). https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=behaviorism%20definition

I currently work in a long term care facility where I am responsible for many different people every day. Almost every one of my patients are there because they need assistance in their everyday lives. They are not able to care for themselves completely on their own anymore. I would say that over half of them have been affected by a stroke or have some degree of dementia, or both. I struggle everyday trying to figure out what they are trying to communicate due to having damage done to a part of their brains. In chapter 2 of our textbook, we read about two types of aphasia, Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Both affect a different part of the brain and impair the ability to communicate.

In Broca’s aphasia, the frontal lobe of the brain is damaged; the specific part is called the Broca’s area (Goldstein, 33). This type of aphasia can affect speech in a way that the person is able to understand what is being said to them but is difficult to be, or not at all understood. It is also common to have right sided weakness in the arm and leg muscles due to the Broca’s area being located in the left hemisphere of the brain (What is Broca’s Aphasia?, 2015). I have someone right now under my care that I struggle to understand. She is unable to form words but can understand what I am saying to her. She has difficulty producing the proper sounds because her tongue, lips, jaw and vocal folds cannot function to form the patterns that are required (What is Broca’s Aphasia?, 2015). I have a note card with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and some simple pictures in order to communicate with her. She will shake her head for simple questions and will often times write barely legible phrases out for me. It is frustrating for her to be able to form thoughts and requests and not be able to tell anyone them.

Wernicke’s aphasia is a little different in a way that it’s almost the opposite of Broca’s. Wernicke’s aphasia affects the ability to understand speech and writing but the person may be able to produce coherent words or phrases (Goldstein, 33). The words and phrases may be easily understood but they may not make sense or be appropriate to the conversation. The area that is damaged in this type of aphasia is in the anterior of the brain located in the left temporal lobe and this area is responsible for thinking of wheat to write, reading and, understanding information (What is Wernicke’s Aphasia?, 2015). I also have a patient that is affected by this. She is unable to clearly understand what is being said or asked. She can hold a conversation with you but is mostly jumbled nonsense that has no meaning. I can say “good morning” and she will respond with something like “I will not bend the silverware.” Like Broca’s aphasia, this type is also frustrating for both sending and receiving information.

I struggle every day that I go to work due to brain damage. I have to be creative in ways of communicating and trying to understand or get people to understand me. A simple greeting like “good morning” cannot be communicated to certain people due to this. Someone who is in immense pain cannot tell me that their knees hurt and they need a pain pill. I take for granted my ability to communicate with my friends, family or just to be able to type up this blog. For someone who is suffering from a type of brain damage, they are not able to do any of those things. Just try, for a few short hours, to tell your boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, or kids something as simple as “I want a drink.” without using words. It’s harder than you think.

References:

Goldstein, E. B (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience. 3^rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bartles, Dr. “What is Broca’s Asphasia?” The Aphasia Center.  31 Jan. 2012. Web. 31 Jan. 2015

Bartles, Dr. “What is Werniccke’s Asphasia?” The Aphasia Center.  31 Jan. 2012. Web. 31 Jan. 2015

We have all been there…everyone is excited about the vacation that’s been planned for weeks.  You’re either driving or a passenger in a vehicle, cruising down the highway (of course while obeying all speed limits!), the music is turned up and you are singing along to your favorite song, the windows are down and ahead of you there’s multiple small glowing red orbs.  Your brain immediately begins to process the scene.  What are the lights?  How much further ahead of you are they?  Why are they glowing?  A traffic jam is the most obvious reason for all the glowing red dots of lights.  In order to react to what is happening ahead of you, your brain first must determine what exactly is going on.  Your brain goes through multiple processes without you even realizing it is going on.  I will use this example to illustrate the bottom-up and top-down processes.

The initial determination will be made by using the bottom-up processing approach.  At this time your brain is taking in the information in the most basic form first.  The tail lights of the vehicles are shining and the geons used to make up the cars are easily recognizable to tell you that there are cars ahead of you on the highway.  Geons are defined as being simple shapes that can be combined to create a larger, more recognizable object (Goldstein, 51).  This is just where the process begins for your brain to determine what actions must be taken before you even recognize you are thinking about it.

Top-down processing now takes into account your previous experiences to determine what is happening in your environment.  Most everyone has seen tail lights on a vehicle light up and know that it means someone in the vehicle is pressing on the brake pedal slowing the vehicle.  The law of good continuation, one of the Gestalt Laws of Organization, defines this perception clearly for us: “…objects that are overlapped by other objects are perceived as continuing behind the overlapping object” (59).   Basically, by knowing that glowing tail lights mean a car is slowing, and seeing multiple tail lights, we perceive the vehicles as being on the highway even if we do not see the entire vehicle.

Finally, your brain will take in the surrounding information to determine the size of the object you are approaching.  How far apart are the reflectors in the lanes?  How far apart are the tail lights?  Are there buildings or trees you can compare the size to?  Your brain takes into account the distances, sizes, and intensity of the vehicles to determine how soon you should also slow down your vehicle.

This is a very simplified explanation of such vast, complex ideas.  Your brain begins with bottom-up by using light receptors to determine the objects you are seeing.  Then the top-down processes begin to occur with determining what exactly is going on before you by using past experiences.  Finally, your brain will have your body react by calculating how much pressure should be applied to your brake pedal.  All of this is happening before you even become conscious to what you are doing.

Kandee Parker-McKinnell

References

Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting MInd, Research, and Everyday Experience. 3rd. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

When most of us hear the Gestalt Principles we tend to draw on blank expressions.  Quite a few people, including myself, would say we have no experience or knowledge to what that is, but we all have come into contact with it in our lives and have not known it.  The Gestalt Principles are used in art and advertising and can be included in recreational fun. The example that most of us have seen is the image of the chalice or vase where when looked at we see either a chalice or vase or a set of faces looking toward one another. With this we can see that two images can occupy the same space.  In this blog, I will be talking about some history to this principle and other forms that this takes place in our lives.

What does Gestalt mean? According to (The Gestalt Principles, n.d & Behrens, 1998), Gestalt is a psychology term that means “unified whole.”  The Gestalt theorists came about in the 1920’s and were the first to investigate perceptual organization in Germany.  The main theorists responsible for this study were Johann Wolfgang von Goeth, Ernst Mach, and Christian von Ehrenfels and the researchers responsible are Kurt Lewin, Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang Kohler (Gestalt Theory of Visual Perception, n.d.). There are six principles to the Gestalt Perception.  The first is Similarity – which means that a group or grouping that looks like a single unit because the shapes are the same or similar in some way.  The second is Proximity – which means that the items are put close together to that people see them as a group.  The third principle is Closure, which happens when an image is present and it is not complete, but the persons perception completes the image.  The fourth is Continuity or Continuation – when happens when your eye and brain are moved through an image to another object.  An example would be a flow line going through another image and you are compelled to follow the flow like a river but you still notice the two separate images as separate even though they are made as one. The fifth is Symmetry, which states that the viewer should not be given the impression that something is out of balance, or missing, or wrong. If an object is asymmetrical, the viewer will waste time trying to find the problem instead of concentrating on the instruction (Gestalt Principles, n.d.). The final principle is Figure and Ground, which happens when you use shading or size to change the brain’s perception.  Silhouettes and complex relationships are an example of how our brains create order in chaos.

I would like to now share some of my own experiences with Gestalt that will hopefully shed some light on this subject.  For me, I was an art student in high school and I saw quite a bit of art with shapes and basic colors, of course it was the 1980’s, and I found this art very appealing to the eye and fun.  What classification this would fall in would be proximity with similar shapes and colors.  My favorite Gestalt example that most of us have seen is the panda image from the Wold Wild Life Federation.  The panda is not complete, but our mind completes the image. This is an excellent example of the Gestalt principle of Closure.

So I hope this blog has helped explain what the Gestalt Principles are and their background to give you some appreciation of this perceptual theory to the art world.  You will now start seeing this in the world around you in art, interior design, advertising, and even in the way you place and arrange things in your home and work space.

References

Behrens, R. R. (1998). Art, Design and Gestalt Theory. LEONARDO, 31(4), 299-303.

Gestalt Principles. (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm

If yuo can raed tihs yuo hvae an amzanig mnid too!

We have all seen it, the long post on Facebook or a silly email with a bunch of jumbled up letters (or even letters and numbers) that we quickly read without much difficulty. These jumbled messages usually claim that with the first sentence it was difficult but by the end of the message you were able to read with ease. Then, the final message is usually about how absolutely amazing our mind is to do such a trick. Well, I won’t argue there, our minds are amazing. So what causes our mind to be able to perform such a terrific feat? The answer is simple: top-down processing.

What exactly is top-down processing? How is it responsible for taking jumbled letters and making sense of them (that is, turning them into language for us)? To start, top-down processing is the information that we get “from our knowledge, expectations, and experience with the world around us” (L3, p4). What this means is that we strive to make sense of the world around us as a whole.

Okay, so now that we have a very basic idea of what top-down processing is, how is it responsible for the jumbled letters and making sense of them? Let’s take a look at this: 1 h4v3 thr33 5ib1ing5. It may take you a minute, but eventually you should read that that says, “I have three siblings”. As we learned about in this chapter three of our text and the lecture commentary, we are able to read the numbers as letters because our minds are not creating an exact copy, rather our minds are using the information that it already knows to make sense of this sentence. That is to say, we use context to figure stuff out!

Often these jumbled messages say that our minds are amazing if we can read them, and you know what? They’re right! Our brains are pretty wonderful and I don’t think it could be done without the help of top-down processing!

Top-Down Processing in Cognitive Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://home.gwu.edu/~droliver/TopDown/

When looking up at the sky, we often see clouds and notice how they resemble animals, objects, or people. One cloud in particular that I can remember observing during sunset looked like a humpback whale leaping from the ocean. Although I knew the cloud was no more than a cloud, I paid attention to how the cloud was shaped like a humpback whale. What influenced me to incorrectly see the cloud as a whale shape? The purpose of this blog is to answer this question. Based on what I have learned from the course textbook and outside sources, it seems that the humpback whale cloud pattern I observed was influenced by my personal perception, the law of familiarity, and flaws in my perception (Goldstein, p.52-63).

Perception is the subjective, active process of experiencing something as a result of added information and the senses being stimulated (Goldstein, p.49 & p.52; Lazzaro, Murra, & Schwortz, p.1; Bruce, Green, & Georgeson, 2003). Since we perceive things actively, although I was sitting down while studying the whale-shaped cloud, my eyes were constantly moving. Additionally, my brain was actively processing, or more specifically bottom-up processing and top-down processing, the cloud stimuli (Goldstein, p.50-52 & p.52-66). This means that physiology (from stimulated receptors, the brain receives signals that are electric, as well as, “feedback signals”), behavior (reception of different aspects of the stimuli), and personal knowledge (knowing what a whale looks like) influenced how I perceived the cloud pattern as a humpback whale (p.50-53).

In fact, personal experience is a significant influence on how we perceptually organize things (p.58). Our brains arrange different characteristics of a stimulus in a way that combines the stimuli’s features in order to mentally construct a more important picture (p.58). The law of familiarity contributes to this organizational process in a way that compares a stimulus to what we are familiar with (p.60). Although the cloud I observed did not feature the exact details of a humpback whale, let alone the fact that whales do not fly, the cloud still looked like a whale to me. Based on the law of familiarity, since I know what a humpback whale looks like (oval-shaped body, long flippers, wide, horizontal tail, and, of course, a hump on its back) from prior experience, the cloud’s features looked similar to the shapes of a humpback whale’s features, which combined and formed into a pattern that I am familiar with.

Nevertheless, the whale-shaped cloud was no more than an inaccurate perception; unfortunately, in reality it was a cloud, not an actual humpback whale. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as pareidolia, which involves incorrectly perceiving a pattern or meaning that does not actually exist. In addition to the cloud I perceived as a whale shape, some examples of pareidolia include a collection of objects with human faces or an animal figure on the moon (Goldstein, p.61) In fact, since Gestalt laws such as familiarity are incorrect perceptions, they are more heuristics than laws (p.62). Therefore, I was really experiencing the heuristic rule of familiarity rather than the law of familiarity.

Conclusively, the process of inaccurately perceiving the cloud as a whale shape was physiological, behavioral, and subjective (p.50-53). While observing the cloud and its features, my brain received different signals that were electric (p.50 & 51). My incorrect perception of the whale-shaped cloud was also the result of my personal perception, which was influenced by my knowledge of humpback whales (p.52-53 & p.62). In the end, despite the fact that I knew the cloud was not an actual humpback whale, I still saw a whale shaped pattern, because its organization was stuck in my mind.

References

Goldstein, E. Bruce (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (3^rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lazzaro, P., Murra, D., & Schwortz, B. (2013, July). Introduction. Pattern recognition     after image processing of low-contrast images, the case of the Shroud of Turin, 1, 1-14. Retrieved from   http://www.frascati.enea.it/fis/lac/excimer/sindone/Di%20Lazzaro%20for%20Patt ernRecognition%20Published%20version.pdf

Bruce, P.R. Green, M.A. Georgeson: Visual perception: Physiology, Psychology, & Ecology (Psychology Press 2003).

When speaking about the function of the brain, it is only natural to me to think of the things that could possibly go wrong with the communication of the brain with the rest of the body. I think this way because I suffer from a condition that disrupts the communication between my brain, my nervous system, and the rest of my body. By this I mean that I have the condition called Multiple sclerosis, most commonly known as MS. Multiple sclerosis is a condition in which the immune system attacks the myelin sheath of the nerves, or the covering of the nerve (Multiple Sclerosis, n.d.).

With the damage to the myelin sheath the communication between the brain and the body is disrupted. Everyone can experience different symptoms with this condition and the overall amount of damage to the nerves varies but then can ultimately deteriorate (Multiple Sclerosis). With this condition I have trouble with losing the feeling in my hands as well as arms, trouble with my vision, mild pain, muscle spams and tremors (just to name a few).

Although there is no cure for this condition there is medication that can treat the symptoms as well as slow the process of nerve damage. With the information that we have learned about the brain we can specifically identify regions of the brain where the damage is impairing function. Since I experience tremors as well as balance impairment we can determine that there is a miscommunication with the cerebellum (Lesson 2, n.d.). There can also be a miscommunication with the occipital lobe since it processes visual information and the parietal lobe to cause the disruption and sensation of pain (Lesson 2, n.d.).

Thankfully in my situation I do not experience these symptoms all the time, it comes and goes depending on several factors in my daily life although these factors are out of my control.

Multiple Sclerosis. (n.d.) The Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/basics/definition/con-20026689

Lesson 2: Cognitive Neuroscience. [Lecture notes]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych256/003/content/03_lesson/08_page.html

Driving home from work, I come around a corner and head up a hill. In the distance I see a deer standing on the side of the road. Living in Bucks County, Pennsylvania this is not uncommon. I slow my car down as I approach, as to not startle the deer, allowing it to either cross the road in front of me or run back into the woods. But as I get closer, the deer doesn’t move. I then notice, this deer is not in fact real but a statue. I step on the gas and continue my drive home, a little more cautious then before. Why did I react that way to a statue? What was happening in my brain that made me step on the brakes when I saw the deer? This was a perfect example of how “perception is linked to the perceiver’s knowledge of the environment” (Goldstein, p. 66) and I was the human perceiving machine.

Experience-dependant plasticity is the mechanism in which the structure of the brain is changed by experience (Goldstein, p. 68) and it has been my experience through my years as a driver that a deer on the side of the road signifies the possibility for danger to which I then react accordingly (in this particular situation that was slowing down my car as I approached the deer). This type of reaction to the environmental situation is the product of neurons reflecting knowledge about properties in the environment (Goldstein, p. 69). Growing up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania it wasn’t uncommon to see deer on the side of the road, either living or sadly, not. Even before I became a licensed driver I knew the consequences of the impact of car and deer. While learning to drive my father would constantly reinforce the dangers of deer.

In a paper titled “Perception without Awareness: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology” the authors discuss visual perception and how there is a “conventional belief that perception implies consciousness” when actually, “stimulus information can be perceived even when there is no awareness of perceiving” (Merikle, Smilek, & Eastwood, 2001). Without actively thinking about it, my brain perceived danger due to environmental experiences and reacted appropriately.

As I continued driving I did so at a slower speed, keeping my eyes on the road while still looking off to the sides in the distance for fear that there may be more deer or other animals that could possibly run out in front of my car. Because I had seen the deer statue and perceived it to be a live deer and therefore a threat, my brain now had me perceiving everything on the side of the road as a possible threat. My drive home took longer than usual because of this. But when I drove to work the next morning, down the same road I did so without worry of deer, at least not consciously. Statue or not, my brain has me being as cautious as possible for fear of possible dangers. Does this work in my favor or cause over cariousness? I have yet to have an deer-related accident so I’ll consider it a favorable neurological benefit.

References:

Goldstein, E. (2011). Perception Depends on Additional Information. In Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (3rd ed., p. 52). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Merikle, Philip M., Smilek, Daniel, & Eastwood, John D. (2001). Perception Without Awareness: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness, Volume 79 (Issue 1-2), pages 115-134.

Although our course has just started, I am learning so much already. Of the topics we have learned, I feel as though I can connect the most to the perception chapter. In particular, I feel that the most relatable concept has been bottom-up processing. Ever since I read about bottom-up processing, I have noticed that this happens to me quite often. The fact that bottom-up processing happens at any time, in any location is what makes the phenomenon most exciting.

Bottom-up processing begins with the most basic of our senses, whether it be sight, smell, or taste. For example, when we see an object, the rod and cone receptors allow us to see the object’s depth and color with our eyes. Our brains’ occipital lobe will then process this visual information into something we can analyze. This is where bottom-up processing can come into play. Sometimes we do not know what an object is right away. That’s why sometimes a plastic bag on the side of the road looks like road kill at first glance; with bottom-up processing, we experience the stimulus first, then analyze it later. However, bottom-up processing is not just associated with sight. Bottom-up processing is also be used to analyze tastes.

A show that utilizes bottom-up processing is, surprisingly, Hell’s Kitchen with Gordon Ramsay. A popular (and personal favorite) challenge for the chefs on the show is the blind taste challenge. Ramsay’s thought is that chefs need to have a great taste palate in order to make the best food. Two chefs will wear blindfolds and noise-cancelling headphones (so their teams can’t shout the answers to them) while Ramsay feeds them different foods. The chefs will have to use only their sense of taste to tell Ramsay what food they are eating. Sometimes the chefs are particularly good at this challenge. However, it’s shocking how terribly some of the chefs perform during this challenge; of the five foods, some chefs are lucky to guess even one food correctly (I remember specifically, a chef thought a piece of salmon was chicken).

The blind taste challenge is an example of bottom-up processing because it is based on being exposed to a stimulus, then analyzing it later. When the chefs eat the food, there is no outside interference, which is due to the blindfolds and headphones. The chefs’ taste receptors are the only receptors working during the challenge. The gustatory cortex analyzes the taste of the food, and the chefs are then asked which food it is they are tasting. Using bottom-up processing, the chefs are able to taste the food, then determine which food they are eating, using their memory.

Bottom-up processing is used in even the most popular places. Whenever we are exposed to unfamiliar stimuli, we use bottom-up processing to analyze the stimuli. Whenever you enter a kitchen, and someone asks, “Have a bite of this, what does it taste like to you?” you will then use bottom-up processing to determine what that food tastes like.

References:

De Araujo, I. E., & Simon, S. A. (2009). The gustatory cortex and multisensory integration. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 33(Suppl 2), S34–S43. doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.70

Ford, E. C. (2015). Lesson 3: Perception. Personal Collection of Dr. E. Christina Ford, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

The Imitation Game (Grossman, 2014) is a movie based on an Andrew Hodges novel titled Alan Turing: The Enigma (Hodges, 1983).  The protagonist, Alan Turing, is a foremost genius and one of the greatest minds in mathematics, computers, psychology, and information theory in the 20^th century.  While the movie’s main focus is on breaking the German Enigma code, it always expands into his domain of Artificial Intelligence (AI) — although it was not even named that in his time.  Foreshadowing AI, Alan Turing derived the Turing Test.  This test poses a unique circumstance to determine whether or not a person can distinguish if they are speaking with a computer or a real person.  The premise is that if the person is fooled by the computer to make it think that it is a person, then the Turing Test has been passed, and “Voila!” intelligence as it is understood is both in the domain of the human and the machine.  So with the advent of Siri and automated messaging systems, it is getting hard to tell the difference.  But remember, “It’s an imitation game.”

At the onset of the age of digital computers starting in the late 1940’ (and this period was after the period described in the Imitation Game), much attention has been paid to the field of Artificial Intelligence.  With the advent of computers — following the famous Moore’s Law of computation power and cost — the possibilities of a scientific and philosophical revolution bring about brand new world (when much of the world was still rebuilding in the aftermath of World War II), looked very promising and within technological reach.  Unfortunately, the promises and the technology are still in the works of being a realized after more than 70 years.  Besides Alan Turing, there enters a character by the name of Norbert Wiener who wrote and lectured on the field of Cybernetics.  His now famous book, compiled from lecture notes, Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Weiner, 1948), was published in 1948 and later revised in 1960.  Norbert’s ideas and book gained momentum through the 1950’s, so much so, that a wide dichotomy grew between the Cybernetists and the Computational Theorist.  Norbert’s colleagues on the other side of the fence, Newell and Simon (Goldstein, 2011), would go the way of championing the growth of artificial intelligence through computational theories and algorithms to study and hopefully produce intelligent systems; however, Norbert would be expanding the field of Cybernetics through the use of Information Theory.

One can understand why artificial intelligence is relevant to cognitive psychology after all, cognitive psychologists study intelligence.  But why is cybernetics relevant to cognitive psychology?  The simple answer is that humans and machines share particular characteristics.  Both work on feedback.  This feedback is a communication system for the human or machine to work.  For example, if I run and trip over a branch lying on the ground and scrap my knee, the next time I run I will definitely attempt to miss that branch, or any other item that may impede my forward progress.  I now possess knowledge of an action that allows me to operate in my environment more effectively.  The “information” I obtained from the incident allows me to project the cause-effect relationship.  This is feedback that works into the brain’s activity of recognizing situations and how to deal with them.  This is what Norbert was theorizing as he took engineering “machine” systems to the fields of psychology, language, and social interaction.

There is nothing better in life than dreams coming true.  But wait!  Doesn’t the saying go, “Be careful what you dream as it just may come true?”    So now we enter the dark sci-fi part of this story.  What about the Terminator?  Could the Arnold Schwarzenegger character of the T-1000 variety really be a realistic part of the future?  The idea is a bit scary, as it is both a fantasy and an “on the horizon possibility.”  A somewhat dangerous set of ideas, circumstances, and bad judgment, and we could all be heading for a post-apocalypse future with the human like machines — built for mere curiosity – that are now resulting in our indentured servitude, enslavement, and mass murder.  Since the Turing Test has not yet been passed, we have some time to think and work out the details.  However, if the day comes when the Turing Test is passed, we can thank the works of Norbert, Newell, and Simon, and live in the “Brave New World.”

So ask what knowledge is, and what possibilities can be achieved through knowledge.   The ethical and epistemological extent of human intelligence and its application to an avatar of ourselves ends in an imitation in which the game is afoot and the results are not clearly understood.  The limits of knowing what we know and how we know are the base construction on the roadmap to “human.”  A rich landscape for philosophers and cognitive psychologist to engage in an ontology of significant depth.  If knowing and being able to learn provides a backdrop to better understanding of all the things we possess, desire, and need, the things that form these relationships become our world.  I have meet people through the years that I am sure could not pass the Turing Test, and for this, I embrace my humanity and guard it jealously.  So why name the blog The Steersman and the Dark Plowman?  Well the short answer is Cybernetics has the Greek root for Steersman, and Schwarzenegger (The Terminator) just so happens to be translated as Dark Plowman in German.

References:

Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Grossman, N. (Producer), & Tyldum, M. (Director).  (2014). The Imitation Game [Motion picture]. England, UK: Warner Bros.

Hodges, A. (1983). Alan Turning: The Enigma. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Weiner, N. (1965). Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.