Search Forum:

Thanks for some of these clarifications. I need to understand the relation between your formal hierarchy, and the list of 14 kinds of tasks. Your hypothesis says, for example, that there are only 8 stages up to/including ‘Concrete? Is this claim something based on the formalism? Or based on induction from empirical observations? It must be based on observations, since the formalism must be interpreted by relating it to observations. I said ?You assert, for example, that there are 2 stages within each of Piaget’s stages. Where do you argue this? Why 2 and not, say, 3?? You reply?“This is proved in the case of primary and concrete in the papers.? However, there is definitely some empirical flexibility in your hierarchy of tasks. For example, you say “Preoperational Order 6 Actions Are Defined In Terms Of Sentential Order 5 Actions & Non-arbitrarily Organize Them? And “Sentential Order 5 Actions Are Made Out Of Nominal Order 4 Actions? This IMPLIES that “Preoperational Order 6 Actions Are Defined In Terms Of?Nominal Order 4 Actions, by (a more complicated) organization of them? This would be to drop stage 5 as a distinct order. SIMILARLY, since you say “Sentential Order 5 Actions Are Made Out Of Nominal Order 4 Actions? and Order 4 actions are “relations among concepts? we could easily argue that “There is a new stage 4.5 that of consists of pairwise succession actions, so that ?Pairwise Order 4.5 actions are made out of Nominal Order 4 actions, and ?Sentential Order 5 actions are made out of Pairwise Order 4.5 actions? Is there any theoretical or general reason why empirical or logical considerations could not require the deletion of one of your MHC stages, or the insertion of a new stage between two of them? Of course, all the later stages would have to be renumbered. But nothing here contradicts your formal theory with Pekker. Is your MHC open to such empirical revision?