Posted by alexandra_k on December 23, 2004, at 14:15:07
In reply to 1.7, posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2004, at 17:09:03
ok. So if there is such a thing as a 'familiarity mechanism' then a breakdown in the mechanism could plausibly have the experiential content 'this person is unfamiliar to me'.
The 'familiarity mechanism' (and the appeal to an evolutionary function) are my idea.
Davies et al need something like this in order to get a rich content attribution (that 'this person is unfamiliar to me'). The only trouble is that Davies et al specify the nature of the experience that has that content as a PERCEPTUAL experience.
I want to say no no no. It is a DISCONNECTION or mismatch between perception and affective response that produces the content.
(Or maybe I want to say that when there is a lack of response from the mechanism when there should be one, then that anomalous experience has that rich content). I prefer the former but maybe I waver a bit through the course of the paper???
poster:alexandra_k
thread:432996
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20041210/msgs/433386.html