Talk:Cognition

choices

are choices (specifically those manifesting into an action) fall into the realm of cognition or "cognitive processes"? BriEnBest (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm sorry about my above post - i had not read all parts of the discussion when i posted it. I suppose choices do not fall under the realm of cognition (is this correct?). However, I am really interested in finding out more about how thinking becomes a choice (meaning one manifested in action). Thank you so much. BriEnBest (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be too trite about this, but the simple yes, we can is a choice. When one has decided 'no, I can't understand something', one has already forfeited one's role in a thought process; that one has automatically lost ones way in the labyrinth,in the race for an achievement. Thus motivation and attention are basic to this thought process. A simple guess is better than a despairing I give up. Why is this? -- it is because one can then think of some simple actions based on that guess, and get on with life. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Portable cameras and telephones

We read:- Other concepts which seem to have arisen only recently (in the last century) include increased expectations for human rights. In this case, an example of an 'emergent behavior' might perhaps be the use of the mass media to publicize inequities in the human condition, perhaps using highly portable cameras and telephones.

Sorry but I do not understand how portable cameras and telephones would be used.Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you have the opportunity to record the beating of someone weaker by someone stronger, and that you have a camera and phone. You could turn on the recorder, point it at the beating, and transmit that record to a news agency. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of subtopics that are too remote from topic

I have deleted the following two subtopics from the end of the article because they are so remote from the topic of this article as to be irrelevant.

In a cultural context

One famous image, Earthrise, taken during Apollo 8, the first Apollo mission to the Moon, shows planet Earth in a single photograph. Earthrise is now the icon for Earth Day, which did not arise until after the image became widespread. At this level, an example of an 'emergent behavior' might be concern for Spaceship Earth, as encouraged by the development of orbiting space observatories etc.

Other concepts which seem to have arisen only recently (in the last century) include increased expectations for human rights. In this case, an example of an 'emergent behavior' might perhaps be the use of the mass media to publicize inequities in the human condition, perhaps using highly portable cameras and telephones. --AlotToLearn (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The second subtopic I have removed was:

Example of emergent organization

It is possible to find other examples of critical mass necessary to develop a concept. For example, a nascent coalition of individuals might fail in the implementation of some agreement among them; but in the words of Ward Cunningham, the inventor of the Wiki-wiki Web:

I thought there would be failure modes, but I wasn't surprised that communities found ways around them. I thought it was important that when the organization proved to be wrong, people could reorganize on their own, that organization could emerge.

In other words, when the organization adapted, the concept adapted and survived the incipient failure mode.

--AlotToLearn (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cognition template

Is anyone else bothered by the "cognition" template? It seems like original research to me. Are there are any sources that claim that the essential topics associated with cognition are "Sentience", "Consciousness", "Sapience", "Self-awareness", "Concept" and "Cognitive linguistics". Please discuss on the talk page of the template. I think it should be removed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I've boldly removed the template. Not sure when it was added, or by who. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was added in November 2008 by User:Zahd, who had a not-so-shiny edit history. I don't know enough to judge whether this is a helpful template, but if it's not worth having on this article, it should probably be removed from other articles too. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since a few of us seem to agree that this template fails to list the central articles about "cognition", I have removed it and will move forward with a request for deletion. Please discuss at Template Talk:Cognition ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations

The article has very few citations, I have placed tags on the article to make readers/writers aware. --Gnepets (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Ontology" section

I have removed that section. It was unsourced and tagged as needing sources for months, and also doesn't have anything to do with cognition as I have learned about it. This section should not go back without having proper sources provided (I actually don't think it should go back at all). Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Science News resource, regarding the Lateral occipital cortex (see related Occipital lobe and Lateral occipital sulcus)

If that’s a TV, this must be the den; To the brain, scenes are sums of objects by Laura Sanders October 22nd, 2011; Vol.180 #9 (p. 16) Also related Knowledge. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This seem related, an excerpt ...

In mental terms, certain scenes are sums of their objects, researchers report online September 4 in Nature Neuroscience. The results help explain how people quickly and accurately recognize complicated scenes such as playgrounds, kitchens and traffic intersections. Much of what scientists know about vision comes from studies of how people see simple objects in isolation, such as a line floating on a white screen, says cognitive neuroscientist Dirk Bernhardt-Walther of Ohio State University. The new work, in contrast, deals with messy, real-world scenes. “It’s an awesome study,” he says.

99.181.138.228 (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem related, to me. But that's not an entirely absurd argument, so it probably shouldn't have been deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the last couple of days this IP editor has added dozens of things like this to various talk pages. They're not useful, and it can't continue. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. It would to be discussed at the VP, though, if a real editor would object; I don't think AN or ANI would help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)