Transcendence of the Cognitive/Affective *Dichotomy*

• Responses to First Learning about Affect Theory by Jim Duffy a.k.a. J.C.D., 2/28/97
  • (...)
    
    • Intellectualizing vs Being Intellectual by Ed Riemann, 3/8/97
      
      

OK folks, I can't take it any more and now have decided to put my 2 cents in, throw my shame anticipation to the wind, and do it! (a posting, that is) I'm a psychiatrist, age 39, in private practice in central Pennsylvania and have been smitten by affect/script theory for the past 3 years or so.

We must first consider the generic properties of information as handled by any information processing organ (machine). Any information has both spatial and temporal dimensions in the most general sense. By spatial, the modality of the information determines what we mean by spatial. For example, visual information has spatial dimensions we can clearly "see," but auditory information "space" would be described in terms of frequency contours and complexity - a single tone at a particular frequency or many different tones simultaneously. For touch information, the "space" could be defined as which areas of skin are stimulated and whether sharp or dull (as distinct from intensity). For smell, the "space" can be defined in terms of the pleasant/ noxious dimension and the mixture of such, along with the specific substance- triggered olfactory signal- in question. When I use the term "space" in all these examples I therefore am describing specifically measurable dimensions of the modality of information in question AS DISTINCT from its temporal profile (its changes over time) AND its intensity. For written text, this use of "space" would correspond to the particular use of symbols, as opposed to its sequence or its figure to ground differentiation - how readable is the text.

Put another way: Information has three general dimensions; 1) spatial and its analogs, 2) temporal and its analogs, 3) intensity and its analogs. These three main properties of information then become duplicated by our nervous tissue into patterns of neural firing which are analogical to these three main dimensions. Whereas cognition deals more with the "spatial" aspects of information, affect deals more with the intensity aspects of information. It seems that both are required in equal importance to deal with the temporal aspects of information. Since affect is the way we "decide" what to consider "figure" and what to consider "ground" at any cross-section of time, the constantly changing intensities of the various dimensions of information over time require an affective "analysis" in order to "show" the cognitive mechanisms "where the figure to ground partition lies" from moment to moment (temporally).

For example, let us describe our home stereo in this way. The duplicated information starts out as data on the compact disc (or ridges in the grooves of a ... what's that called... oh yea, a record) and is eventually duplicated as amplified electrical signals which drive a set of speakers, producing sound waves - another duplicative step. The compact disc player ( or phonograph) can be considered the cognitive component - if directly connected to the speakers we can hear the information on the disc, just barely -very smart, but very weak. The amplifier can be considered the affective component - if directly connected to the speakers (without connection to compact disc player or phonograph) we get plenty of volume, but it is all noise- very dumb, but very strong. So both are needed in equal importance for effective duplication to occur. Cognition is about the nature and composition of a signal and affect is about the strength of that signal, using the stereo example.

So, cognition is about the analysis of information in terms of its patterns as they relate to other patterns and affect is about the analysis of information in terms of its intensity and therefore motivational aspects. Cognition is about "what is it?" and affect is about "who cares?"

Now do I have that clear? I welcome any clarification or modification from Don, Vick, Ed or anybody else.

• Cognitive/Affective Continuum by Ed Riemann, 4/17/97
  • Exactly by Jonathan Grindlinger, 4/17/97
    • Affective Emergence by Ed Riemann, 4/20/97
      • Modularity versus Continuum by Jonathan Grindlinger, 4/23/97
        • Modulation vs Mathmatics by Ed Riemann, 5/1/97