[FRIAM] Mirror Neurons & Intersubjective Reality

Roger Critchlow rec at elf.org
Thu Nov 16 09:19:33 EST 2023

A 60 second search found this behind a paywall:
  William G Chase and Herbert A Simon. 1973. Perception in chess. Cognitive
psychology 4(1):55–81.
The abstract sounds right, but there were only three subjects in the study.

-- rec --

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 6:21 AM David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>

> Just getting to this one, days late….
> On Nov 15, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
> I have not (yet) read this critically, the introduction just tweaked my
> (confirmation biased) interests:
> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-11-brain.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fmedicalxpress.com%2fnews%2f2023-11-brain.html&c=E,1,yAfT9hJo7uUSxtZmctr_nLsgLeaHFbiw3c00tgPiz-JIVENC_gRTqM1ZLoAQ6-QyWMJG6xRzx9-DhBbc_r7ZwTXSXHCoWZFQ3taU76Zkp-0V&typo=1>
> Here is one of several research stories that Elwyn Berlekamp told to me
> during a visit to SFI many years ago in which I was his host (the closest I
> will ever come to the experience of those who hosted Erdos).
> Elwyn was one of the principles of the MSRI research into mathematical
> analysis of combinatorial games.
> Here was one project:
> Subjects are shown a chessboard with pieces on it, for a short time, after
> which the board is cleared (remember Searching for Bobby Fisher: “Here;
> I’ll help you”), and the subject is asked to reconstruct the piece
> locations.
> The subjects were in two categories: high-level chess players, and
> ordinary people who don’t really play seriously, though perhaps they
> understand the rules of the game.
> I will recount to you the outcomes as they were told to me.  I have not
> gone back to original sources so I don’t know if some stylization was added
> to “sharpen the edges” of the picture.
> 1.  For pieces placed on a board by computer-random number generators, the
> experts and the novices were not much different in speed or reliability of
> replacing pieces.
> 2. When the arrangements were not randomly generated, but rather taken
> from various stages in the play of games by high-level players, suddenly a
> big gap opened up.  The novices did about the same as they had done for
> randomly placed pieces at similar sparseness etc.  The experts got much
> faster and more reliable.
> The experimenters, of course, wanted to say something mechanistic about
> why.  To do this they put eye-trackers on the subjects, to find out what
> they were looking at when presented with the blankened board and asked to
> rebuild.  So: what did the experts look at first?  This is where the
> tension of the joke is set up, to prepare for the punchline.
> 3. The place the experts looked first was at the “next good move” from
> what had been the position, and they then backfilled the pieces in the
> positions that had made it the next good move.
> I find this story delightful.  If I were less lazy and really needed it
> for anything, maybe I would do the work to find out how reliable it is.
> Eric
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20231116/b1580803/attachment.html>

More information about the Friam mailing list