Subject: Re: Difference between cognition and perception? From: Andy Graybeal <graybeal(at)SPEAKEASY.NET> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:13:29 -0700sound and light can effect brainwave activity, at times this can be felt explicitly but i would guess most times it isn't felt. i think this fits well with what you are talking about, i'd like to hear more about the responses you get on this topic as well. -andy Andrew Bell wrote: >There is an interesting recent paper by Rensink that distinguishes people's >ability to "see" something explicitly and "feel" that something in the >visual arena has changed. Rensink calls this mode of perception 'mindsight' >(in analogy with blindsight) and it gives a good example of how, in about >30% of normal people, visual cognition can take place without visual qualia. >He mentions audition, and says that a similar effect may occur: an event >might generate a feeling of something having occurred without supplying a >specific sound qualia. > >Could people on the list give examples where this appears to have happened? > > >Andrew. >______ > > >R.A. Rensink (2004). Visual sensing without seeing. Psychological Science >15, 27-32 > > > > > > >>>>pallier <pallier(at)LSCP.EHESS.FR> 5:45:17 am Wednesday, 14 April 2004 >>>> >>>> >>>> >Woojay Jeon wrote: > > > >>I am wondering if anyone can clarify the exact difference between >>"cognition" and "perception", at least in terms of acoustics, and also >>provide some examples illustrating the difference? >> >> > > >My opinion is that "perception" and "cognition" are not very useful >concepts in information processing models. > >Of course, many models of the mind roughly distinguish between input >modules, a central "executive" system, and "output systems". In this >type of models, one may want to label 'perception' the processes >implemented by the input modules, and 'cognition' the processes >implemented by the central system. Yet, the real job of psychologists is >to describe the processes and representations realized by the mind/brain >(I make this statement after having wasted quite a bit of time trying to >define precisely "perception" years ago... I would like to know if some >disagree). > >Then, there is the question of consciousness.One may want to call >'Perception' the process which generates the qualia associated with an >oject. (but subliminal perception generates no qualia...). Consciouness >has become a "hot topic" during the last years, but I do not know if >there are convicing IP models of qualia. Maybe your post will start an >interesting discussion on this topic. > >Christophe Pallier > >