From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Toy discipline, and the future of cog sci? (was Re: Observer effect)
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:51:05 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

furry@hitl.washington.edu writes:
> You're right, cognitive science follows technological fads, applying
> whatever theory is currently popular to the modelling of the mind. 

I didn't see the original posting that led to this, but you are aware,
aren't you, that this is a phenomenon that his been with psychology 
since its inception.  Or are you lumping psychology since Wilhelm Wundt
under "cognitive science"?  

> I believe this is representative of minimal progress on an exceedingly
> difficult problem.  Any reasonable progress would provide a foundation for
> future work that is more compelling than the current trends of thought.  

I think it is possible to see this already.  Excepting the view of cognition
and mind in the popular press, I don't think anyone seriously views the
mind via a hydraulic metaphor, an electronic switchboard metaphor, or
even via a computer metaphor (including ANNs).  Since perhaps the mid-70's 
(I'm thinking here of some of Marr's work), people's musings about mind 
have had something of a reciprical effect on technology; there are still
parallels, but it is difficult to say which is influencing the other.  

> In my opinion, cognitive science will remain a 'toy' discipline until a
> significant breakthrough provides that foundation.

I think it was in _Computation and Cognition_ (1984?) that Pylyshyn said 
that cognitive science is like physics before Newton.  He also notes that
while there is no clear Newton among us, every researcher and his cadre 
of grad students think they know who it is. :-)  

I think he was right too: As with any other world-changing scientific
(r)evolution, I think cog sci will not burst into bloom until a Newton,
Maxwell, or Einstein arises among us.  

> Jeff James

There now:  In terms of the Scary Claims that someone made here a few
days ago, I think I've just made two more:

1) Technology and the understanding of mind will continue to parallel 
each other.  The net result will be that when we understand meta-cognition
(individuals as semi-cognitive agents for a larger (social) entity), our
technology will be right there, enabling us to take advantage of our new
knowledge without the formerly requisite time spent learning wisdom.

1a) Maybe Verner Vinge was right.  Headbands for everyone.
1a.1) Maybe Verner Vinge is Jules Verne on a Youth Serum... but that
      would make William Gibson H.G. Wells on the same Serum. ;-)

2) Startling progress in cognitive science will come unexpectedly and
quickly, when someone achieves a new descriptive, predictive, and manipulable
understanding of the principles of mind ranging from sensory apparatus to 
cortical organization and symbolic flow.  Later generations will not fully 
understand this person's work, but will hail him or her as the pre-eminent 
genius of all time.

2a) Given the population of the earth, its growth, and the rate at which 
blazing genuis has arisen in the past, the chances are that such a person 
will become known within the next generation, if not much sooner (a note 
to grad students: _carefully_ consider your thesis topic).  

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis