BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260913T190722Z
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20220916T150000
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20220916T170000
SUMMARY:Transduction\, calibration\, and the cognitive penetration of pain
UID:20260913T190723Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1876:beff:feed:47f9%3
TZID:Australia/Melbourne
LOCATION:250 Victoria Parade\, East Melbourne\, Australia\, 3002
DESCRIPTION:<p>Pains are subject to obvious\, well-documented\, and striking top-down influences. This is in stark contrast&nbsp\;to visual perception\, where the debate over cognitive penetrability tends to revolve around fairly subtle&nbsp\;experimental effects. Several authors have recently taken up the question of whether top-down effects&nbsp\;on pain count as cognitive penetrability\, and what that might show us about traditional debates. I review&nbsp\;some of the known mechanisms for top-down modulation of pain\, and suggest that it reveals an issue&nbsp\;with a relatively neglected part of the cognitive penetrability literature. Much of the debate inherits&nbsp\;Pylyshyn&rsquo\;s stark contrast between transducers and cognition proper. His distinction grew out of his&nbsp\;running fight with the Gibsonians\, and is far too strong to be defensible. I suggest that we might&nbsp\;therefore view top-down influences on pain as a species of transducer calibration. This resolves few&nbsp\;questions\, supports nobody&rsquo\;s position\, and makes the whole debate even messier than it was before---though hopefully in a fruitful way.&nbsp\;</p>\n
ORGANIZER;CN=Kyle H. Blumberg:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR