Hegel,modal logic,and the social nature of mind

ABSTRACT

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit provides a fascinating picture of individual minds caught up in “recognitive” relations so as to constitute a realm—“spirit”—which, while necessarily embedded in nature, is not reducible to it. In this essay I suggest a contemporary path for developing Hegel's suggestive ideas in a way that broadly conforms to the demands of his own system, such that one moves from logic to a philosophy of mind. Hence I draw on Hegel's “subjective logic”, understood in the light of modern modal logic, in an attempt to model the way minds might be thought as connected by way of shared intentional contents. Here, we should not be surprised at some of the parallels that emerge between the approaches of Hegel and the modal logician Arthur Prior, as Prior had testified to the influence of his teacher, John N. Findlay, who himself had strong Hegelian leanings. In the final section, Robert Stalnaker's version of possible-world semantics is suggested as a framework within which Hegel's recognitive account of the mind might be understood.     

Effects of Pointing Rate and Availability of Visual Feedback on Visual and Proprioceptive Components of Prism Adaptation

While looking through laterally displacing prisms, subjects pointed 60 times straight ahead of their nose at a rate of one complete movement every 2 or 3 s, with visual feedback available early in the pointing movement or delayed until the end of the movement. Sagittal pointing was paced such that movement speed covaried with pointing rate. Aftereffect measures (obtained after every 10 pointing trials) showed that when the limb became visible early in a pointing movement, proprioceptive adaptation was greater than visual, but when visual feedback was delayed until the end of the movement, the reverse was true. This effect occurred only with the 3-s pointing rate, however. With the 2-s pointing rate, adaptation was predominately proprioceptive in nature, regardless of feedback availability. Independent of the availability of visual feedback, visual adaptation developed more quickly with 3-s pointing, whereas proprioceptive adaptation developed more rapidly with 2-s pointing. These results are discussed in terms of a model of perceptual-motor organization in which the direction of coordinative (guidance) linkage between eye-head (visual) and hand-head (proprioceptive) systems (and consequently the locus of discordance registration and adaptive recalibration) is determined jointly by pointing rate and feedback availability. An additional effect of pointing rate is to determine the rate of discordant inputs. Maximal adaptive recalibration occurs when the input (pointing) rate matches the time constant of the adaptive encoder in the guided system.     

A factor analytic study of manifest anxiety: a transsituational, transtemporal investigation

In this study, we investigated the factorial structure of the Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) among American, counseling graduate students (N = 227). The MAS was administered across transsituational and transtemporal conditions. The following four factors were yielded following orthogonal rotation: General Worries, Physiological Correlates of Anxiety, Distractibility, and Embarrassment. These four factors, however, explained less than one quarter of the common variance extracted. Following a comparison with previous factor analytic studies of the MAS, we discuss factors possibly contributing to the discrepant findings, with particular attention to the MAS's item content and psychometric properties and the nature of the population used.     

Temporal characteristics of a comparator in adaptation to optical tilt

Two groups of eight Ss each and one group of seven Ss were exposed to optical tilts (T) of 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 deg in succession. Exposure time at each tilt was 3, 15, and 27 min in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Trend analyses of the functions relating level of adaptation to T showed significant quadratic components for Group 1, quadratic and linear components for Group 2, and only linear components for Group 3. These results were consistent with derivations from a memory-comparator model of perceptual adaptation.     

Prism exposure aftereffects and direct effects for different movement and feedback times

The effects of movement time and time to visual feedback (feedback time) on prism exposure aftereffects and direct effects were studied. In Experiment 1, the participants' (N = 60) pointing limb became visible early in the movement (.2-s feedback time), and eye-head aftereffects increased with increasing movement time (.5 to 3.0 s), but larger hand-head aftereffects showed little change. Direct effects (terminal error during exposure) showed near-perfect compensation for the prismatic displacement (11.4 diopters) when movement time was short but decreasing compensation with longer movement times. In Experiment 2, participants' (N = 48) eye-head aftereffects increased and their larger hand-head aftereffects decreased with increasing movement time (2.0 and 3.0 s), especially when feedback time increased (.25 and 1.5 s). Direct effects showed increasing overcompensation for longer movement and feedback times. Those results suggest that aftereffects and direct effects measure distinct adaptive processes, namely, spatial realignment and strategic control, respectively. Differences in movement and feedback times evoke different eye-hand coordination strategies and consequent direct effects. Realignment aftereffects also depend upon the coordination strategy deployed, but not all strategies support realignment. Moreover, realignment is transparent to strategic control and, when added to strategic correction, may produce nonadaptive performance.     

Dual prism adaptation: calibration or alignment?

Dual adaptation to different amounts or directions of prismatic displacement, or both, can be acquired and maintained with little mutual interference. Associative recalibration of the regional task- or workspace, contingent on differentiation of distinguishing sensory information, can explain such adaptation. In contrast, nonassociative realignment restores dimensional mapping among spatial representations. Methods for measuring the separate contributions of those 2 kinds of prism adaptation are identified in the present article. On the basis of a critique of dual-adaptation studies, the authors suggest that recalibration can explain the data but that the method used in those experiments confounded realignment and might have obscured the effectiveness of dual-calibration training.     

Strategie Calibration and Spatial Alignment: A Model From Prism Adaptation

Two types of adaptive processes involved in prism adaptation have been identified: slower spatial realignment among the several unique sensorimotor coordinate systems (spatial maps) and faster strategic motor control responses (including skill learning and calibration) to spatial misalignment. One measures the 1st process by assessing the aftereffects of prism exposure, whereas direct effects of the prism during exposure are a measure of the 2nd process. A model is described that relates those adaptive processes and distinguishes between extraordinary alignment and ordinary calibration. A conformal translation algorithm that operates on the hypothesized circuitry is proposed. The authors apply the model to explain the advantage of visual calibration when the limb is seen in the starting position prior to movement initiation. Implications of the model for the use of prism adaptation as a tool for investigation of motor control and learning are discussed.     

Prism Exposure Aftereffects and Direct Effects for Different Movement and Feedback Times

The effects of movement time and time to visual feedback (feedback time) on prism exposure aftereffects and direct effects were studied. In Experiment 1, the participants' (N = 60) pointing limb became visible early in the movement (.2-s feedback time, and eye-head aftereffects increased with increasing movement time (.5 to 3.0 s), but larger hand-head aftereffects showed little change. Direct effects (terminal error during exposure) showed near-perfect compensation for the prismatic displacement (11.4 diopters) when movement time was short but decreasing compensation with longer movement times. In Experiment 2, participants' (N = 48) eye-head aftereffects increased and their larger hand-head aftereffects decreased with increasing movement time (2.0 and 3.0 s), especially when feedback time increased (.25 and 1.5 s). Direct effects showed increasing overcompensation for longer movement and feedback times. Those results suggest that aftereffects and direct effects measure distinct adaptive processes, namely, spatial realignment and strategic control, respectively. Differences in movement and feedback times evoke different eye -hand coordination strategies and consequent direct effects. Realignment aftereffects also depend upon the coordination strategy deployed, but not all strategies support realignment. Moreover, realignment is transparent to strategic control and, when added to strategic correction, may produce nonadaptive performance.     

Effects on Prism Adaptation of Duration and Timing of Visual Feedback During Pointing

In two experiments, we investigated the effects of duration of visual feedback of the pointing limb and the time (early to late) in the movement when the limb first becomes visible (timing of visual feedback). Timing, rather than duration of visual feedback, proved to have the greater effect on the relative magnitude of visual and proprioceptive adaptation. Visual adaptation increased smoothly with feedback delay, but corresponding decreases in proprioceptive adaptation underwent an additional sharp change when feedback was delayed until about three-fourths of the way to the terminal limb position. These results are consistent with the idea that visual and proprioceptive adaptation are mediated by exclusive processes. Change in the limb position sense (i.e., proprioceptive adaptation) may be produced by visual guidance of the pointing limb, and view of the limb early in the pointing movement seems to be critical for such visual guidance. The limb may be ballistically “released“ as it nears the terminal position, and, thereafter, any opportunity for visual guidance (i.e., view of the limb) is not effective. On the other hand, change in the eye position sense (i.e., visual adaptation) may be mediated by proprioceptive guidance of the eye; the eyes may track the imaged position of the nonvisible limb. Such proprioceptive guidance seems to be solely a function of the distance moved before the limb becomes visible.