Re: ASA is what it is and the CA$A engineers do care

[Pierre Divenyi <marva4!EarLab!pierre@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear List:

Well, I think Al did make his view clear regarding the ongoing debate
of segregation, binding, features, processes, and problems. I could not
agree more with his statement that, before embarking on theorizing
on processes, one should better define the problems. But how
to define problems other than through experimentation? So, once again,
"...verba volant, data manent." (For those who have skipped Latin, the
correct saying is "verba volant, scripta manent" but in some science,
especially in certain branches of psychology, "scripta" are predominantly
"verba"... Sorry, but nobody on the auditory list is being criticized!)

I also think that Al's 1991 clear-cut distinction between primitive
and schema-driven segregation is on its way into the sunset. In a way,
I would be sad if it altogether disappeared (because much of my own
experimentation rests on the premises that the top-down processes can
be eliminated by exercising some care). But, if awareness is brought in
(...what level of awareness?...), the boundary between the two types of
segregation becomes very unclear.

One more thing: there is one big difference between the distinction

        A said X while B said Y
vs.     A said Y while B said X

and the Deutsch octave illusion: for the distinction there is a
correct or incorrect answer, whereas for the octave illusion there is
only an answer.

        Pierre