Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site hwcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!hwcs!gilbert From: gilbert@hwcs.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: net.cog-eng Subject: Re: cognitive-engineering, connectionism, etc. ...really flame-ola Message-ID: <666@hwcs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 05:44:31 EST Article-I.D.: hwcs.666 Posted: Tue Oct 29 05:44:31 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 04:47:47 EST References: <2246@iddic.UUCP> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.hw.AC.UK (Gilbert Cockton) Distribution: net Organization: Computer Sci., Heriot-Watt U., Scotland Lines: 36 In article <2246@iddic.UUCP> dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Doretta Schrock) writes: > >I'm always excited when a new posting appears in net.cog-eng. >Will it be about some new connectionist theory? Maybe some >theoretical discussion of brain vs. computer? Or maybe a comment >on a new model of perception, attention, cognition, or memory? > >Recently this group has been degenerating into a clone of net.micro.mac, >which I (and many others, judging by the volume) read. PLEASE keep your >discussions of DRI vs. Apple (and etcetera) OVER THERE (or preferably, >in your head)! This group does seem to have been colonised by the pragamatic school of Computer-Human Interaction. Personally I do find some of the ideas on interaction techniques interesting and I would certainly miss them. The problem seems to me to the group's name `Cognitive Engineering'. As far as this title is concerned, it is NOT a Cognitive Science group. As I see it the net.ai already carries a lot of cognitive science material, so perhaps you're looking in the wrong place when you read this group. Perhaps a new group called net.chi is needed that will cater for both theoreticians and practitioners in interactive systems, leaving the purists in cog-eng to discuss the length and shape of the brain along with its optimal processing speed in tachistoscopic experiments. >Has anyone else read _Godel, Escher, Bach_? Or Pylyshyn's _Computation and >Cognition_? Or _The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction_? What did >you think? Yes, no, yes. Interesting, can't say, disappointing ( I would never recommend this as early reading for anyone new to hci, it is far too idiosyncratic and academically sloppy, I'd rather have 4,000 DOD CHI guidelines !)