“The principle of voting, when considered in relation to Langacker’s notion of the schema, demonstrates beyond doubt that the openness of this concept to updating implicitly entails the activation of a single stored mental fabric, one that does not multiply. Such updating poses no difficulty in itself. However, once we take into account the concept of ‘voting’ as emphasized in Jeffrey Hawkins’s recently developed framework—adopted here as a central model for the updating of cognitive ideas—it follows that every update, regardless of its degree, is realized in our cognition as a mentally designed model (fully shaped in design).
Accordingly, the updating of the schema becomes the product of an interaction between the mind (at the level of cortical columns) and the neural barrage that constitutes perceptual input. Every conceptualization, whatever its background or outcome, is assimilated as a comprehensible model whose structure is determined by the percepts associated with it. The models thus cognitively designed are organized into reference maps/referentials, each comprising several thousand possible models for perceiving the same entity, with one of them selected through the voting principle.
Such updating raises no theoretical difficulty, since it does not contradict the properties of the schema—openness, updatability, adaptability, and abstractness—given its interaction with the nature of acquired experience. This process may be termed ‘schematicity of referential models,’ which transcends static abstract cognition and touches upon a dimension of human intelligence, insofar as it reflects the dynamic nature of the mind enabled by the adoption and application of the voting principle within this cognitive-linguistic argumentative inquiry.”
This is the whole text.. I need your opinions ; Thank’s everyone!
Hi @Oussama_Hbari , thanks for your post - just to help me with responding, are you able to clarify where this text came from, since it is in quotation marks? I would also be curious to better understand your particular interest? For example, did you have a specific question about it?
**“Thank you for your kind attention. I have noticed that most of the contributions are rooted in applied biology and computational sciences, particularly in the field of Artificial Intelligence; yet none of these areas are directly related to my own interests as a linguistics researcher (from the perspective of Langacker’s Cognitive Linguistics). My specific specialization lies in analyzing the corpus of traditional Arabic grammatical disputes through the lens of non-formal logic (the argumentative frameworks of Douglas Walton and Oswald Ducrot).
But what has brought me to this virtual space dedicated to the distinguished works of Professor Jeffrey Hawkins? In short, it is the search for updates that can be accommodated within Langacker’s cognitive linguistic approach, especially in relation to some of the major contributions of the Thousand Brains Theory and, more broadly, the work of the Numenta group in the field.
As for what I have presented here, it is a synthetic element and constitutes part of my doctoral dissertation entitled: ‘Foundations/Arguments of Grammatical Disputes from a Cognitive Linguistic Perspective.’ What I intended precisely was to invite your interaction with the idea, and to inquire whether there might be any specific issues in my understanding of the components of the Thousand Brains Theory.
Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful engagement, dear Professor.”*
Thanks @Oussama_Hbari , I do not have any background in linguistics and non-formal logic, so I cannot comment on the connections you make between the TBT and those areas. However, from my reading, the description of voting that your text contains is accurate - i.e. I don’t see any errors in how voting within the TBT has been described. I hope that helps.
Thank’s a lot, friend! Of course it’s helpful !
1 Like
Of course professor; Thank you for the quick response.