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 !)