Genetic Epistemology

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Feb 19 2000 - 03:12:52 GMT

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "RE: meaning in memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA15075 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 19 Feb 2000 03:10:33 GMT
    Message-Id: <200002190304.WAA15135@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:12:52 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Genetic Epistemology
    In-reply-to: <200002182304.SAA21738@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    > The field of genetic epistemology was created and developed
    > by Jean Piaget (one of the three great French structuralists, along
    > wuth Claude Levi-Strauss and A. J. Greimas), who referred to his
    > position as constructivist, reflecting his conviction that structure
    > and function are inseparable in any particular instance (1970: 85-
    > 93), and his certainty that the structures which he studied
    > demonstrated an evolving dynamic equilibration which is better
    > described by homeorhesis than homeostasis, and which
    > resembles Prigogine's dissipative structures (1975: 3-4). For
    > Piaget, the evolution, by construction, of more inclusive,
    > differentiated and interconnected structions from simpler, more
    > limited and more isolated ones involves the struggle for wholeness
    > by means of a system of self-regulating transformations (1968: 3-
    > 16). This isomorphic psychgenesis of subject-knowledge and
    > object-knowledge proceeds through six levels; the senorimotor
    > level, the first and second levels of preoperational thought, the first
    > and second levels of concrete operations, and the level of formal
    > operations. The guiding principle in the continuous construction of
    > this system in human development is a dynamic dialectic between
    > assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation integrates, strives
    > for internal consistency of structure, and generates necessities,
    > while accommodation differentiates, strives for external coherency
    > between a structure and the many world-situations in which it
    > functions, and generates possibilities. This evolution of action
    > schemes is recapitulated in the learning of sign systems. For
    > instance, children learn to apply the signs "cat" and "dog" to the
    > concrete particular pets signified by these terms (or in other words
    > learn their meaning) before they integrate them into "animal" or
    > differentiate them into "persian", "siamese", "poodle", "terrier", etc.
    > (1983: 94-97). The interplay of these two processes is most
    > concisely presented in Piaget's two postulates which her makes
    > clear have been inductively derived from experiental resultes. They
    > are (1) "every assimilatory scheme tends to incorporate external
    > elements that are compatible with it", and (2) "Every assimilatory
    > scheme has to be accommodated to the elements it assimilates,
    > but the changes made to adapt it to an object's peculiarities must
    > be effected without loss of continuity" (1975: 6). In other words, an
    > infant may co-ordinate eye and hand in learning to grasp a rattle
    > lying beside it; the infant may then generalize this procedure to
    > allow it to grasp objects in different positions relative to it and/or of
    > different shapes and sizes without, however, losing what is specific
    > to the act of grasping the seen within the thicket of the act's
    > multiple particular elaborations. Assimilation plus accommodation
    > equals adaptation, or equilibration. Equilibration occurs between
    > "assimilation of objects to schemes of action and accommodation
    > of schemes of action to objects" (a "function of the fundamental
    > interconnection between subject and object"), between two
    > subsystems of a system (reciprocal assimilation leading to mutual
    > conservation), and between a system and its subsystems.
    > Equilibration also involves correspondence between affirmations
    > (yes, this element can be assimilated/accommodated) and
    > negations (no, this element can't be assimilated/accommodated),
    > or between similarity ans disparity in the aspect or aspects salient
    > to a scheme (1975: 5-10). The phenomenologist Aron Gurwitsch
    > considered dispositions and character traits, or "psychic
    > constants", to be formed in a like manner, as "systematic unities
    > of experienced facts rather than the facts themselves", and
    > demonstrating a causal unity (1985: 15-16).
    > Disequilibria result when a trial produces an error (when the
    > applied scheme fails), or when there is no suitable scheme
    > available to apply; in other words, disequilibrium results from
    > perturbations, defined as "anything that creates obstacles to
    > assimilation or to achieving a goal" (1975: 16). These perturbations
    > motivate "searching", a "strik[ing] out in new directions". Progress
    > results from the accommodation of an existing sheme to the task
    > or the assimilation of the task to an existing scheme, or from the
    > development of a ner scheme which succeeds, i.e. when
    > "disequilibria...give rise to developments that surpass what has
    > previously existed" (1975: 10-15). Obviously, feedback is essential
    > to this process; positive feedback reinforces a scheme, and
    > negative feedback undermines it. These complementary feedback
    > schemes are termed regulations, and they react to perturbations
    > by means of compensations.
    > Regulations may act to conserve or to modify schemes, or to
    > mediate between them. They may act by means of automatic
    > compensations, requiring little attention, or active compensations,
    > rwquiring a choice to be made or changed. For Piaget, active
    > regulations "lead to conscious awareness" and "lie at the source of
    > the representation or conceptualization of material actions." There
    > may be simple regulations, regulations of regulations, ttc.,
    > hierarchically ordered, up to autoregulations, which make self-
    > organization possible. The evolving system is open, that is, it
    > continually advances and never reaches completion, for there are
    > always further advances to be made, and novel situations to
    > confront. This process of equilibration towards ever better
    > equilibrium, i.e. more extensive, efficient, precise and
    > interconnected cognitive systems, Piaget calls optimization (1975:
    > 16-26).
    > According to Piaget, cognizance "proceeds from the periphery
    > to the center(s)." Periphery is the interface between organism and
    > environment (therefore peripheral to both), and lies in the relation
    > between proprioceived bodily action and perceived worldly
    > phenomena (which according to merleau-Ponty are correlational
    > and mutually grounding). Center (S) is the subject's operational
    > scheme, and Center (O) is the array of intrinsic properties
    > attributed to the object. Movement from the periphery towards one
    > center is correlational with movement toward the other, thus the
    > "understanding of objects" and the "conceptualization of actions"
    > advance isomorphically.
    > Extending Piaget's model of human development, Lewis and
    > Brooks-Gunn have investigated the ontogeny of human self-
    > recognition by means of mirror studies of infants. The area is
    > important, due to the fact that chimpanzees, bonoboes, gorillas
    > and orangutans, the only nonhuman terrestrial life forms who have
    > arguably been able to learn prephonemic sign systems (although
    > not to create them), are also able to recognize themselves in a
    > mirror; the lesser apes treat their own image as they would treat
    > unfamiliar conspecifics (members of the same species). They
    > discovered that human infants placed before a mirror reacted
    > differently to their reflections depending upon age. As early as one
    > month of age, infants will gaze at their reflections. At 5-8 months
    > of age, they will smile at and touch the mirror (mirror-directed
    > behavior). At 9-12 months of age, they will move rhythmically as
    > they watch their image also move (play with contingency). At 15-
    > 18 months of age infants will act coy before their reflections. If
    > rouge is applied to their noses prior to their exposure to a mirror, a
    > few in this age group will touch their own noses (self-directed
    > behavior) rather than the noses in the mirror. No infants younger
    > than fifteen months exhibited this behavior; practically all infants 21-
    > 24 months old did (1979: 212-219).
    > Lewis and brooks-Gunn also exposed infants to videotapes of
    > themselves, thus eliminating the contingent relation between action
    > and image. They discovered that person-permanence is correlated
    > with mirror-contingent self-recognition and conditioned affective
    > reactions, and that object-permanence, occurring later, is
    > correlated with self-permanence ans specific emotional experience
    > (1979: 222-228). The experimenters concluded, on the basis of
    > their data, that at birth, behavior is a combination of random
    > movements and innate reflexes, which function as a means to
    > engage the infant with its environment. These innate reflexes
    > gradually fade, replaced by cognitive structures formed by infant-
    > environment interaction. These structures incerasingly take control
    > of behavior. By approximately three months of age, reflexes and
    > cognitions exercise roughly equal dominion, afther which
    > cognitions progressivelt dominate (1979: 241-245).

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 19 2000 - 03:10:37 GMT