From: William Benzon (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 20 Feb 2003 - 00:52:48 GMT
on 2/19/03 7:06 PM, Grant Callaghan at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I am. These guys are quite skeptical about the notion that the
> brain is a
> computer passing patterns of bits hither and yon. They don't
> have much of
> anything to say about what neurons are up to.
> Frames is a different notion entirely. The term was coined by
> Minsky in the
> 1970s, etc. Fauconnier and Turner are skeptical about Minsky.
> Are you sure they and Minsky are using the term in the same way to mean the
> same thing? Do you have any references that express what the various
> individuals have to say about that?
Blends and frames are certainly different things, though it's possible that
the blends folks could accommodate some notion of frames. But the blend
folks are skeptical about the brain/computer metaphor while Minsky is one of
the primary authors of that metaphor (along with Herb Simon, Allen Newell,
and John McCarthy). Fauconnier and Turner identify with something called
2nd generation cognitive science, while Minsky is 1st generation. See
Lakoff and Johnson (1999) for an account of this difference. Note that this
is a highly biased account; L&J are 2nd generation.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York, Basic
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> 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 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 20 Feb 2003 - 00:48:57 GMT