Respond to Classmates

Respond to Classmates

Please respond to each classmate’s discussion response separately in at least 250 words per answer. The responses must be in APA format and include at least one reference per answer. The original discussion question will be included as a reference, but you only need to respond to the classmate’s response.

Original Question 1:

Fodor presents four alternative mental structures. Provide opinion and support for which of the four is superior to the others.

Classmate 1 Response:

Fodor (1983) offers that there are four modules to the mind. Neocartesianism focuses on knowledge and contents; horizontal focuses on judgment, memory, and function; vertical focuses on aptitude, qualities, and function; and associationism focuses on changing the view of the facilities to mathematically processes (Fodor, 1983). Neocartesianism appears to be the most likely and most aligned with commonly accepted because of its focus on knowledge and the interconnection of the body to the brain (Fodor, 1983). Fodor (1983) discounted associationism himself claiming that it was based on flawed logic. Fodor (1983) offered that the vertical model was the significant and horizontal the most logical of the four modules. I cannot argue that these two structures are not logical or important; however, they also appear to be missing some important points. The vertical focus on aptitude and qualities leaves out important cognitive factors. (Fodor, 1983). The horizontal focus appears to include the cognitive factors missing in the vertical structure; however, it still lacks in essential areas (Fodor, 1983).

Sarah

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay of faculty psychology. MIT press. Retrieved from www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langmind/Fodor1983.pdf

Classmate 2 Response:

Fodor has presented four alternative mental structures which are neocartesianism, functional architecture of horizontal faculties and vertical faculties, and association (Fodor, 1983). Each of the mental structures have a different function within the brain for instance the neocartesian is about the knowledge. Then there is functional architecture of horizontal which is the mental structures of the memory, judgement and others. There is also the functional architecture of vertical faculties which identifies skills such as mathematics and language. Which each have their own characteristic processes of memory and attention. Lastly is associationism which is composed of the elements related to sensations and idea.

I would have to say the superior of all four alternative mental structures is neocartesian, since it deals with knowledge. It is important for people to understand what they are doing and why. This can go back to my educational background of the criminal justice system and topic for my dissertation which is recidivism. I feel it is imperative offenders understand their mistakes and what led up to them so they can make better choices.

I would have to agree with Lynn, this week’s DQ was a bit challenging in finding articles related to Fodor four alternative mental structures but thank you Sarah for the link.

Catrina

Reference

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay of faculty psychology. MIT press. Retrieved from www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langmind/Fodor1983.pdf

Original Question 2:

Compare Cui et al., Kelley & Lavie, and Ericsson & Kintsch regarding their overlapping methods. Design an experimental approach to further verify the Ericsson-Kintsch argument for the existence of long-term working memory (heretofore thought only to hold information for a matter of a few seconds) and justify the methodology(ies) you choose.

Classmate 3 Response:

These three approaches were mutually interesting. Visual imagery, memory, and related neural activity prompts an exploration of diverse, yet commonly coinciding methodologies. The approach held by Cui et al. (2007) concentrates on visual imagery for memory and vividness. Kelley & Levine (2011) explores memory through sensory processing and cognitive controls. Ericsson & Kintsch (1995) explored memory from the basis of domain-specific patterns and schemas. One of the unique features of Ericsson & Kintsch’s (1995) theory is that memory retrieval is dependent on practice and repetition. If I were to further verify Ericsson-Kintsch’s long-term working memory theory I would be sure to elaborate on and define the established arrangement and schemas in a way that thoroughly sheds light on the domain and memory retrieval constructions, while as the reader I was left to use my interpretations of these components. This change would allow participants to associate visual cues with their appropriate theme.

Thank you,

Brianna

References

Cui, X., Jeter, C. B., Yang, D., Montague, P. R., & Eagleman, D. M. (2007). Vividness of mental imagery: Individual variability can be measured objectively. Vision Research, 47, 474-478. Retrieve from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://dx.doi…

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search…

Kelley, T. A., & Lavie, N. (2011). Working memory load modulates distractor competition in primary visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1(21) 659-665. Retrieved from http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/659….