The Human mind uniquely process information and takes in information via several methods per the theories of philosophers. According to Aristotle’s 3 principals Contiguity, Frequency, and Similarity. Contiguity is the nearness and time and space; in other words, we process memory through associationism events for instance per pg.4 in the text humans associates tables and chairs as one unit which is usually associated with eating, Associationism is also one of Aristotle’s key interest regarding memory. It is believed that using frequency is another way that humans process information and memorize. The more often we experience events that are contiguous the more we associate them; for example, the more we see or smell popcorn we tend to often think of movies or being a movie theater.
Other instances may suggest nativism which means the bulk of our knowledge is inborn or for a lack of a better term we are already born with it. However, arguments support that knowledge is attained through experience accordingly to Aristotle. The human mind takes in and process information through experience, through association and by being inherited.
When it comes to Plato’s theory, I would refute the fact that knowledge is innate. I personally feel as though knowledge must be obtained and taught either from a form of structure and/or the surrounding environment. I would learn more towards John Locke’s theory that a newborns mind is a blank slate, and its knowledge must be taught and obtained. I will use the example of racism I don’t believe a person is born a racist I believe racism is taught and or obtained from its environment and surroundings. Agreeing with Plato’s theory would indicate that a person could be born racist.
We learn in several ways, one being through associationism of the theory of Pavlov, when we learn through experience. Palov’s Theory reflects that through experience a dog will salivate every time he hears a bell ring because he associates that with dinner when taught. Another example would support touching fire for the first time, although we may learn that fire is “hot” according to Pavlov’s theory we also learn that fire burns after we have been burned, Associating touching fire with a consequence of being burned teaches humans and animals through experience that not only is fire hot but if contacted it will also burn.
The reason we learn so that we can simply have knowledge, and skill which also aids in survival or for Natural selection. Animal learning and human learning also includes latent learning when learning takes place when there is no motivation to obtain or avoid a specific consequence such as food or shock.
I don’t see much of a difference in human learning versus animal learning, I find it to be the same concept. Humans uses events, and frequency as methods of learning as well as through site. Both animal and human uses cognitive thinking and that is the process by which one learns from experience. Referring to the Pavlov’s Theory when a dog salivates at the sound of a bell, the process can also be reversed when the bell is rung without no meal, and after several times of realizing that the sound of a bell will not include a dinner. Humans think an learn with the same ability if humans learn that through a lightening strike usually leads to a thunderstorm that too can also be reversed that when seeing lighting strike could also indicate a tornado outbreak. Although you can’t teach animal to cook however, eating to survive share the same concept of a human. You can watch another person cook and learn the skills of cooking. Whereas a Cheetah cub will watch the mother hunt to learn the concept of hunting; which ultimately aids in survival.
Animals typically learn by reward such as the mice in Edward Tolman’s theory. Humans learning capabilities exceeds that of animals because of the several methods of learning and interpretation.
The study of the mind is a legitimate science because science consist of observation and experiments. When observing the mind of humans and animals and using findings in an experiment it qualifies Psychology as a legitimate science. Ethology which is the study of animal behavior and behavioral science is the study of human behavior, the study of behavior is a science which correlates with the mind then I support the argument of psychology being an actual science.
One of the components in understanding behavior from an animal or a human is understanding the mind (Psychology) and how it operates, and process information. If mathematics is recognized as a science and it also uses formulas to solve problems, the study of the mind also uses similar formulas and functions to solve problems and interpret cognitive thinking. Such as Hull’s formula of Direct S-R associations.
In conclusion if cognitive science is the study of thought, reasoning and higher mental functions then it is legitimate that Psychology is indeed a science.
Written by Tino.
-Brotherhood of Sincerity