Ok, Here are my thoughts. Firstly, my surname is Moore-Anderson ;)
Secondly, it's clear that your response derives from assumptions of cognitivism. You reject my assumptions from enactivism because they are two competing fields/explanations of cognition. I think that is the most concise response.
There are several cases where you stray from my arguments and assumptions, for example:
"It’s simply to acknowledge the fact that if students have not attended to the explanation, they are in no position to infer, predict or choose anything useful about it."
My post was about securing attention.
And here, you show that you are basing your assumptions on classical cognitivism, which is exactly what I make explicit in my post:
"Inference is only made possible by attention." (action impossible without perception).
Whereas from enactivism, the assumption is action leads to perception.
Your claim here is that teachers don't have an epistemology, and possibly insinuate that your arguments are assumption free (both impossible and problematic):
"Teachers don’t stand in front of a class wondering whether cognition is fundamentally enactive or computational."
I'm sure those sold by classical cognitivism will agree with your post. Those who prefer enactive assumptions (or even contemporary cognitivism - like predictive process) will lean towards my argument. Which we choose to follow is something we can decide. Enactivist assumptions are my preference.
As for the rest, I just don’t see how any of it follows. It’s fine for you to accuse my of classical cognitivism or whatever but that just ignores the specifics. In the end, as you say, you’re welcome to your preferences. I’m glad you acknowledge that they are just that.
All thought is based on assumptions, no one is free of this. These are the fundamental principles with which we derive answers and problem solve. In academic work, it's common practice to be explicit about one's assumptions in the paper you write.
In cognitive science there are competing fields, none of which has managed to prove the other wrong; therefore we choose via preference (everyone). Cognitivism and enactivism are legitimately distinct fields because they stem from distinct assumptions about the mind. Ultimately, we choose which assumptions we accept. If we decide on cognitivism, then we'll come to different answers than if we decide on enactivism. You don't see how my arguments follow because you don't subscribe to, or don't know, the assumptions of enactivism.
From bluesky:
Ok, Here are my thoughts. Firstly, my surname is Moore-Anderson ;)
Secondly, it's clear that your response derives from assumptions of cognitivism. You reject my assumptions from enactivism because they are two competing fields/explanations of cognition. I think that is the most concise response.
There are several cases where you stray from my arguments and assumptions, for example:
"It’s simply to acknowledge the fact that if students have not attended to the explanation, they are in no position to infer, predict or choose anything useful about it."
My post was about securing attention.
And here, you show that you are basing your assumptions on classical cognitivism, which is exactly what I make explicit in my post:
"Inference is only made possible by attention." (action impossible without perception).
Whereas from enactivism, the assumption is action leads to perception.
Your claim here is that teachers don't have an epistemology, and possibly insinuate that your arguments are assumption free (both impossible and problematic):
"Teachers don’t stand in front of a class wondering whether cognition is fundamentally enactive or computational."
I'm sure those sold by classical cognitivism will agree with your post. Those who prefer enactive assumptions (or even contemporary cognitivism - like predictive process) will lean towards my argument. Which we choose to follow is something we can decide. Enactivist assumptions are my preference.
I’ll change how I write you name, sorry
As for the rest, I just don’t see how any of it follows. It’s fine for you to accuse my of classical cognitivism or whatever but that just ignores the specifics. In the end, as you say, you’re welcome to your preferences. I’m glad you acknowledge that they are just that.
All thought is based on assumptions, no one is free of this. These are the fundamental principles with which we derive answers and problem solve. In academic work, it's common practice to be explicit about one's assumptions in the paper you write.
In cognitive science there are competing fields, none of which has managed to prove the other wrong; therefore we choose via preference (everyone). Cognitivism and enactivism are legitimately distinct fields because they stem from distinct assumptions about the mind. Ultimately, we choose which assumptions we accept. If we decide on cognitivism, then we'll come to different answers than if we decide on enactivism. You don't see how my arguments follow because you don't subscribe to, or don't know, the assumptions of enactivism.
If I can’t understand your assumptions, maybe you haven’t explained them very well.
Does making sure children have heard what has been said help them learn. Indubitably.