A methodological general principle emerges from these considerations. Morphological characteristics of a species may be understood as a specialized form of the general (abstracted) type characteristic of the genus; each genus represents a special modification from the general structural pattern of the superordinate family; each family represents special deviations from the more general structural pattern of the order, etc. On the other hand, the systematic of behavior do not have the same hierarchical relationships. Discontinuities and unique traits are common; specializations of behavior seem to deviate more markedly from general patterns, and in many cases the specializations are so pronounced that the abstraction of general behavior types is impossible or hazardous.
基於這些考量，我們有了一個方法論上的一般原則。某一物種的形態特徵可以看作是所屬的屬的一般(抽象)特徵的一種特化的形式；一個科之下的每一個屬表現了對該科的一般結構樣式的一種特別調整；一個目之下的每一個科代表了對該目的一般結構樣式特殊的偏離。另一方面，行為的系統並沒有相同的階層關係。不連續的情形和獨有的特徵是常有的事；行為的特化似乎更顯著地偏離了一般樣式，而且在許多情形下，這些特化是如此的顯著以至於要對抽象出一般行為類型是不可能或是冒險的。
This difference in structural as opposed to behavioral systematics may be entirely due to the limitations of human observation and insight. We can discern, visually, the relationship between forms; but the relationship of behavior escapes our powers of observation more easily. However this may be, it leads to the following methodological principle:
結構的分類學相對於行為的分類學之間的差異可能完全是因為人類觀察以及眼光有侷限。我們可以從外觀上察覺形式之間的關係，但是行為之間的關係並不容易看得出來。然而，無論如何，這引出了以下的方法論原則。
Knowledge of structure alone cannot lead to exact inference of behavior patterns (only general modes of life); but once behavior patterns are known, we can understand and explain by hindsight certain specialization of morphology.
僅憑著對於結構的認識並不能使我們確切的推論行為的型態(只能推論生命的一般模式)；但是一旦認識到行為的型態，我們就能夠經由後見之明來了解並且解釋某些形態上的特化。
This is a methodological formulation. It does not give clues to the direction of causality; it does not assert that behavior is prior to form or vice versa.
這是一個方法論上的構想，它並沒有給我們線索去探討因果關係；這個構想並不主張行為先於形式，或者是形式先於行為。
2008年11月25日 星期二
Preface 1
Ideas do not grow in vacuo. Throughout my fifteen years of residence in the Cambridge area, I have greatly profited from courses taken and given, from conversations, and from general interaction with colleagues and students. I wish to mention particularly Georg v. Békésy, Roger Brown, Jerome Bruner, Noam Chomsky, George Gardner, George Miller, and Peter Wolff. All of them have discussed various aspects of this book with me, and most have read and commented upon several chapters or the entire manuscript. I am also indebted to Hans-Lukas Teuber for critically reading Chapters one and five; to A. H Schultz and George Erikson for advising me on Chapter two; to Philip Liberman and Arthur House for commenting on Chapter three; to M. Kinsbourne for reading chapter four; to Charles Gross and Peter Huttenlocher for criticisms of Chapter five; to H. Burla, Hans Kalmus, and Ernst Mayr for reading various versions of Chapter six; and to DeLee Lantz for comments and criticisms on Chapter eight.
想法並非憑空而來。住在劍橋的期間，上課與聽課時與同事和學生的交流，使我獲益良多。我要特別感謝Georg v. Békésy,Roger Brown, Jerome Bruner, Noam Chomsky, George Gardner, George Miller, 還有 Peter Wolff。 他們皆與我討論過書中的許多部份，大多數人曾評論或閱讀過好幾個章節或整個手稿。我也要感謝Hans-Lukas Teuber，謝謝他對第一章和第五章的批評指教; 還要感謝 A. H Schultz 和 George Erikson， 他們給了許多第二章的建議;感謝 Philip Liberman and Arthur House 評論了第三章; 感謝 M. Kinsbourne閱讀第四章; 感謝Charles Gross和 Peter Huttenlocher 對第五章的批評; 感謝H. Burla, Hans Kalmus和 Ernst Mayr 閱讀了第六章的各個版本;感謝 DeLee Lantz 對第八章的評論與批評。
想法並非憑空而來。住在劍橋的期間，上課與聽課時與同事和學生的交流，使我獲益良多。我要特別感謝Georg v. Békésy,Roger Brown, Jerome Bruner, Noam Chomsky, George Gardner, George Miller, 還有 Peter Wolff。 他們皆與我討論過書中的許多部份，大多數人曾評論或閱讀過好幾個章節或整個手稿。我也要感謝Hans-Lukas Teuber，謝謝他對第一章和第五章的批評指教; 還要感謝 A. H Schultz 和 George Erikson， 他們給了許多第二章的建議;感謝 Philip Liberman and Arthur House 評論了第三章; 感謝 M. Kinsbourne閱讀第四章; 感謝Charles Gross和 Peter Huttenlocher 對第五章的批評; 感謝H. Burla, Hans Kalmus和 Ernst Mayr 閱讀了第六章的各個版本;感謝 DeLee Lantz 對第八章的評論與批評。
2008年11月5日 星期三
DeLee (Dorothy) Lantz
I have been licensed in California and enjoying my clinical practice here since 1977. After receiving my doctorate from Harvard University in 1963, I worked first as a teacher and researcher, as well as a clinician. Former positions include the faculties of the University of California at Santa Cruz, UCLA School of Medicine and the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco. I also spent a total of four years in India, as a counseling psychologist, as well as doing research in villages and studying Eastern systems of understanding the mind and emotions.
In my clinical practice, I see clients who range in age from adolescence to older adulthood. I like to adapt my approach to what is best for each individual. For anxiety disorders such as panic disorders and phobias, I have found that cognitive-behavioral therapy with biofeedback generally has the best results. For overcoming blocks to achieving one’s goals, often a more psychodynamic approach is best for uncovering fears and old, self-defeating messages. The new “positive psychology”, or psychology of well-being, or “flourishing”, is very useful for those who want to develop more fully the attitudes and habits that support a healthier, happier present and future. Frequently, I use a combination of approaches. Integral to all my work is a collaborative relationship with the client and support of his or her strengths and resources.
I am especially experienced in psychotherapy for anxiety disorders, depression, pain or medical conditions and life transitions. Areas of greatest biofeedback experience are anxiety, pain management, stress management and psychophysiological disorders, where the mind-body connection is especially important. I’d be delighted to hear from you if you feel that my approaches and experience might be of help to you.
In my clinical practice, I see clients who range in age from adolescence to older adulthood. I like to adapt my approach to what is best for each individual. For anxiety disorders such as panic disorders and phobias, I have found that cognitive-behavioral therapy with biofeedback generally has the best results. For overcoming blocks to achieving one’s goals, often a more psychodynamic approach is best for uncovering fears and old, self-defeating messages. The new “positive psychology”, or psychology of well-being, or “flourishing”, is very useful for those who want to develop more fully the attitudes and habits that support a healthier, happier present and future. Frequently, I use a combination of approaches. Integral to all my work is a collaborative relationship with the client and support of his or her strengths and resources.
I am especially experienced in psychotherapy for anxiety disorders, depression, pain or medical conditions and life transitions. Areas of greatest biofeedback experience are anxiety, pain management, stress management and psychophysiological disorders, where the mind-body connection is especially important. I’d be delighted to hear from you if you feel that my approaches and experience might be of help to you.
Noam Chomsky
Avram Noam Chomsky (pronounced /noʊm ˈtʃɑmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3][4] cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[5] Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics.[6][7] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist,[8] and a libertarian socialist intellectual.
In the 1950s, Chomsky began developing his theory of generative grammar, which has had a profound influence on linguistics. He established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. His 1959 review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior challenged the behaviorist approaches to studies of behavior and language dominant at the time and contributed to the cognitive revolution in psychology. His naturalistic[9] approach to the study of language has affected the philosophy of language and mind.[10]
Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War Chomsky established himself as a prominent critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He is a self-declared adherent of libertarian socialism which he regards as "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."[11]
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–92 period, and was the eighth most-cited source.[12][13][14] At the same time, his status as a leading critic of American politics has made him a controversial figure.[15]
In the 1950s, Chomsky began developing his theory of generative grammar, which has had a profound influence on linguistics. He established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. His 1959 review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior challenged the behaviorist approaches to studies of behavior and language dominant at the time and contributed to the cognitive revolution in psychology. His naturalistic[9] approach to the study of language has affected the philosophy of language and mind.[10]
Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War Chomsky established himself as a prominent critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He is a self-declared adherent of libertarian socialism which he regards as "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."[11]
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–92 period, and was the eighth most-cited source.[12][13][14] At the same time, his status as a leading critic of American politics has made him a controversial figure.[15]
Georg von Békésy (1899 - 1972)
Georg von Békésy was born in Budapest, Hungary on June 3, 1899. He received his early education in Munich, Constantinople, Budapest, and Zurich and studied chemistry at the University of Berne. He was awarded his Ph.D. from the University of Budapest in 1926 for development of a fast method for determining molecular weight. Afterwards he worked primarily for the Hungarian Telephone and Post Office Laboratory in Budapest where his interests were directed towards problems of telecommunications. Eventually he examined the problem of how best to design a telephone earphone.
Research on this problem led to his 1928 discovery of the mechanical characteristics of neural transduction in the inner ear. One of Békésy's principal contributions was the development of anatomical techniques that allowed rapid, nondestructive dissection of the cochlea. This dissection was done under a low-power microscope using a special grinding mechanism operated in a water bath. Békésy was able to observe the traveling waves along the basilar membrane that were produced by sound. He observed the shape of these waves by stroboscopic examination of the motion of particles of silver which he sprinkled on the nearly transparent basilar membrane. Depending upon the frequency of the sound, the traveling waves achieved maximum amplitude in different locations. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1961 for his discovery and subsequent research arising from it.
In 1947, after a year in Sweden, Dr. Békésy came to the United States and worked at Harvard University where he developed a mechanical model of the inner ear. A separate page shows more pictures of this fascinating device and Bekesy's description of it from his Nobel lecture. The model became a useful tool for his more recent investigations.
Threatened by forced retirement from Harvard, Dr. Békésy came to the University of Hawaii in 1966. He was attracted by construction of a special laboratory for him and the prospect of closer contact with oriental culture. His research in Hawaii was partially sponsored by Hawaiian Telephone and was concerned with phenomena that were general properties of all senses.
Throughout his life, Dr. Békésy assembled an extensive collection of paintings, statues and artifacts now owned by the Nobel Foundation. The process of constant comparison of related objects which he used to select pieces for his collection was to Békésy very similar to the methods he used to organize his scientific research.
Learn more about Georg von Békésy by browsing the many online resources available.
Threatened by forced retirement from Harvard, Dr. Békésy came to the University of Hawaii in 1966. He was attracted by construction of a special laboratory for him and the prospect of closer contact with oriental culture. His research in Hawaii was partially sponsored by Hawaiian Telephone and was concerned with phenomena that were general properties of all senses.
Throughout his life, Dr. Békésy assembled an extensive collection of paintings, statues and artifacts now owned by the Nobel Foundation. The process of constant comparison of related objects which he used to select pieces for his collection was to Békésy very similar to the methods he used to organize his scientific research.
Learn more about Georg von Békésy by browsing the many online resources available.
2008年10月31日 星期五
LB72 伊津(References)
Ajuriaguerra, J. de and Hécaen, H. (1949), Le Cortex cerebral; étude neuro-psychopathologique. Masson, Paris.
Bailey, P., and Bonin, G. v. (1951), The Isocortex of the Chimpanzee. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Bailey, P., Bonin, G.v., and McCulloch, W. S. (1950), The Isocortex of the Chimpanzee. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Bailey, P., Buchanan, D. N., and Bucy, P.C. (1939), Intracranial Tumors of Infancy and Childhood. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bailey, P. and Davis, E. W. (1942), Effects of lesions of the periaqueductal gray matter in the cat, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med. 51:305-306.
Bok, S.T. (1959), Histonomy of the Cerebral Cortex. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bonin, G. von (1950), Essay on the Cerebral Cortex. C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Bonin, G. von (1962), Anatomical asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres, in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance. V.B. Mountcastle (ed.), The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Bonin, G. von and Bailey, P. (1961), Pattern of the cerebral isocortex, in Primatologia; Handbook of Primatology. H. Hofer, A. H. Schultz, and D. Starck (eds.), Karger, Basel.
Braus, H. (1954), Anatomie des Menschen, ein Lehrbuch für studierende Ärzte fortgeführt von Curt Elze (3rd ed.), Vol. I. Springer, Berlin.
Brodnitz, F. S. (1960), Speech after glossectomy, Curr. Probl. Phoniat. Logoper. 1:68-72.
Campion, G. G. and Elliot-Smith, G. The Neutral Basis of Thought. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1935
Clark, W. E. Le Gros (1932), The structure and connections of the thalamus, Brain 55:406-470.
Conrad, K. (1954), New problems of aphasia, Brain 77:491-509
Coppoletta, J. M. and Wolbach, S. B. (1933), Body length and organ weights of infants and children, Am. J. Pathol. 9:55-70.
Critchley, M. (1962), Speech and speecj-loss in relation to duality of the brain in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance, V. B. Mountcastle (ed.), pp.208-213. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dodgson, M.C. H. (1962), The Growing Brain; An Essay in Developmental Neurology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
DuBrul, E. L. (1958), Evolution of the Speech Apparatus. C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Duckworth, W. L. H.(1910), A note on sections of the lips of the primates, J. Anat. And Physiol. 44: 348:-353.
Feremutsch, K. (1963), Thalamus, in Primatologia; Handbook of Primatology, H. Hofer, A. H. Schultz, and D. Starck (eds.), Vol. II, part 2, fasc. 6. Karger, Basel.
Fink, B. R. and Kirschner, F. (1959), Observations on the acoustical and mechanical properties of the vocal folds, Folia Phoniatria 11: 167-172.
Goldstein, K. (1942), After-effects of Brain Injuries in War; Their Evalution an dTreatment, Grune and Stratton, New York.
Guiot, G., Hertzog, E, Rondot , P., and Molina, P. (1961), Arrest or acceleration of speech evoked by thalamic stimulation in the course of stereotaxic procedures for Parkinsonism, Brain 84:363-380
Bailey, P., and Bonin, G. v. (1951), The Isocortex of the Chimpanzee. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Bailey, P., Bonin, G.v., and McCulloch, W. S. (1950), The Isocortex of the Chimpanzee. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Bailey, P., Buchanan, D. N., and Bucy, P.C. (1939), Intracranial Tumors of Infancy and Childhood. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bailey, P. and Davis, E. W. (1942), Effects of lesions of the periaqueductal gray matter in the cat, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med. 51:305-306.
Bok, S.T. (1959), Histonomy of the Cerebral Cortex. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bonin, G. von (1950), Essay on the Cerebral Cortex. C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Bonin, G. von (1962), Anatomical asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres, in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance. V.B. Mountcastle (ed.), The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Bonin, G. von and Bailey, P. (1961), Pattern of the cerebral isocortex, in Primatologia; Handbook of Primatology. H. Hofer, A. H. Schultz, and D. Starck (eds.), Karger, Basel.
Braus, H. (1954), Anatomie des Menschen, ein Lehrbuch für studierende Ärzte fortgeführt von Curt Elze (3rd ed.), Vol. I. Springer, Berlin.
Brodnitz, F. S. (1960), Speech after glossectomy, Curr. Probl. Phoniat. Logoper. 1:68-72.
Campion, G. G. and Elliot-Smith, G. The Neutral Basis of Thought. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1935
Clark, W. E. Le Gros (1932), The structure and connections of the thalamus, Brain 55:406-470.
Conrad, K. (1954), New problems of aphasia, Brain 77:491-509
Coppoletta, J. M. and Wolbach, S. B. (1933), Body length and organ weights of infants and children, Am. J. Pathol. 9:55-70.
Critchley, M. (1962), Speech and speecj-loss in relation to duality of the brain in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance, V. B. Mountcastle (ed.), pp.208-213. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dodgson, M.C. H. (1962), The Growing Brain; An Essay in Developmental Neurology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
DuBrul, E. L. (1958), Evolution of the Speech Apparatus. C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Duckworth, W. L. H.(1910), A note on sections of the lips of the primates, J. Anat. And Physiol. 44: 348:-353.
Feremutsch, K. (1963), Thalamus, in Primatologia; Handbook of Primatology, H. Hofer, A. H. Schultz, and D. Starck (eds.), Vol. II, part 2, fasc. 6. Karger, Basel.
Fink, B. R. and Kirschner, F. (1959), Observations on the acoustical and mechanical properties of the vocal folds, Folia Phoniatria 11: 167-172.
Goldstein, K. (1942), After-effects of Brain Injuries in War; Their Evalution an dTreatment, Grune and Stratton, New York.
Guiot, G., Hertzog, E, Rondot , P., and Molina, P. (1961), Arrest or acceleration of speech evoked by thalamic stimulation in the course of stereotaxic procedures for Parkinsonism, Brain 84:363-380
2008年10月28日 星期二
Karl Lashley
Karl Spencer Lashley (1890–1958), born in Davis, West Virginia, was an American psychologist and behaviorist well-remembered for his influential contributions to the study of learning and memory. His failure to find a single biological locus of memory (or "engram", as he called it) suggested to him that memories were not localized to one part of the brain, but were widely distributed throughout the cortex.
While working toward his Ph.D. in genetics at Johns Hopkins University, Karl Lashley became associated with the influential psychologist John B. Watson. During three years of postdoctoral work on vertebrate behavior (1914-17), he began formulating the research program that was to occupy the remainder of his life.
In 1920 he became an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, where his prolific research on brain function gained him a professorship in 1924. He was later a professor at the University of Chicago (1929-35) and Harvard University (1935-55) and also served as director of the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida from 1942 to 1955.
His work included research on brain mechanisms related to sense receptors and on the cortical basis of motor activities. His major work was done on the measurement of behavior before and after specific, carefully quantified, induced cortical damage in rats. He trained rats to perform specific tasks (seeking a food reward), then lesioned varying portions of the rat cortex, either before or after the animals received the training depending upon the experiment. The amount of cortical tissue removed had specific effects on acquisition and retention of knowledge, but the location of the removed cortex had no effect on the rats' performance in the maze. This led Lashley to conclude that memories are not localized but widely distributed across the cortex.Today we know that distribution of engrams does in fact exist, however, the distribution is not equal across all cortical areas, as Lashley assumed. His study of the V1 (primary visual cortex) led him to believe that it was a site of learning and memory storage (i.e an engram) in the brain. He reached this erroneous conclusion due to imperfect lesioning methods.
By 1950, Lashley had distilled his research into two theories. The principle of "mass action" stated that the cerebral cortex acts as one—as a whole—in many types of learning. The principle of "equipotentiality" stated that if certain parts of the brain are damaged, other parts of the brain may take on the role of the damaged portion.
While working toward his Ph.D. in genetics at Johns Hopkins University, Karl Lashley became associated with the influential psychologist John B. Watson. During three years of postdoctoral work on vertebrate behavior (1914-17), he began formulating the research program that was to occupy the remainder of his life.
In 1920 he became an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, where his prolific research on brain function gained him a professorship in 1924. He was later a professor at the University of Chicago (1929-35) and Harvard University (1935-55) and also served as director of the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida from 1942 to 1955.
His work included research on brain mechanisms related to sense receptors and on the cortical basis of motor activities. His major work was done on the measurement of behavior before and after specific, carefully quantified, induced cortical damage in rats. He trained rats to perform specific tasks (seeking a food reward), then lesioned varying portions of the rat cortex, either before or after the animals received the training depending upon the experiment. The amount of cortical tissue removed had specific effects on acquisition and retention of knowledge, but the location of the removed cortex had no effect on the rats' performance in the maze. This led Lashley to conclude that memories are not localized but widely distributed across the cortex.Today we know that distribution of engrams does in fact exist, however, the distribution is not equal across all cortical areas, as Lashley assumed. His study of the V1 (primary visual cortex) led him to believe that it was a site of learning and memory storage (i.e an engram) in the brain. He reached this erroneous conclusion due to imperfect lesioning methods.
By 1950, Lashley had distilled his research into two theories. The principle of "mass action" stated that the cerebral cortex acts as one—as a whole—in many types of learning. The principle of "equipotentiality" stated that if certain parts of the brain are damaged, other parts of the brain may take on the role of the damaged portion.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)