In her talk we will explore recent advances in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics, focusing on how the brain processes linguistic structure and statistical regularities.

For more info and regsitration: cog-ist.com/etkinlik-duy...

You can register here:
forms.gle/AXGZ8UNWbPt5...

...but as semiotic systems grounded in interpretation and meaning-making. In his lecture, Kull will show how biosemiotics redefines key biological notions, speciation, arbitrariness, freedom, umwelt, and the aesthetic dimension.

Biosemiotics studies communication, meaning, and interpretation in living systems, viewing life itself as a network of sign processes. It examines biological regularities such as information, coding, and signaling not as mere mechanical or computational phenomena...

However, where these people see anticipation, I see only tendency or (pre)disposition. I also cannot see a compelling argument for why we should take those systems as anticipatory.

Sadly Herbart is barely known at all. I remember that when I first encountered him in around 2019, I couldn’t find so much as a single decent English book about him. Though some publications have come out in the meantime.

I'm taking this a step further and suggesting that, setting aside the historical context of cognitive science's emergence, Herbart might be considered the first (mathematical) cognitive scientist.

I reckon I’m gearing up to take a critical stance on these theories... I couldn’t quite figure out the exact reason yet, but still.

To be honest, I don’t think so. The debate seems to be entirely about semantics for them.

As long as we do not move away from this conceptualisation, a 'true' form of psycho-'therapy' will not be possible.

This is the case with Levin’s Technological Mind Everywhere approach, as well as the emergentist schools in cognitive science.

Bourdieu, in one instance, while discussing those who propose isomorphic relationships as explanations in social disciplines, refers to it as 'short-circuiting the explanation'.