Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
Posted by
Robert J. Cordingley on
May 03, 2010; 3:22pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Beat-poet-defends-the-scientific-method-tp4993619p4998364.html
Nick,
So here's the crux? Where does thinking occur? Or what is it that
goes on inside our heads? From a systems standpoint, our environment
(outside our head) can be seen as one system and our brain and
everything (thinking, brain processes, mental processing, dreaming,
whatever...) going on inside it is another system. Between the two are
input and output devices. Thinking can still occur if all the input
and output devices are shutdown as is attempted, but perhaps not
completely achieved, in a sensory deprivation tank. The transaction,
to which you refer, is, to me, an interaction between the systems.
Thinking can still continue without a transaction occurring. It may
follow a transaction (interaction) or precede one. Thinking is
obviously influenced by the transactions (interactions), as in
learning. Isolate the thinking center from the environment and
thinking can continue in the thinking center. Isolate the environment
from a thinking center and thinking doesn't continue in the
environment. The collective thinking processes are called the mind.
The mind is to the brain as vision is to the eyes (except 40% of the
brain is involved in vision processing). So what's wrong with this
type of definition? (I'm back to semantics or may be it's
ontologies). I don't have such a succinct definition (or perhaps it's
a model) for soul and aura and that's why 'banging on about mind' is
different.
Perhaps tho' in your domain of expertise you'd prefer to define these
terms differently, then these definitions should be made clear before
we begin debating or starting the argument!
Perhaps tho' your provocations have a different objective not yet
shared?
Thanks
Robert
On 5/2/10 11:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Robert,
I suppose if I accepted your premises I might be led to your
conclusions. But I don;t.
I don't think thinking goes on in the head. I think thinking is
transaction between the organism and the environment. The brain has a
whole lot to do with mediating that relationship, but the activities of
the brain do not, by themselves, constitute thinking.
I dont know how or why any body who insisted that the mind was
in the brain would deny that the soul was in there, too.
I mean, why not? Chuck in the aura, too! What's the harm?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
5/2/2010 3:09:20 PM
Subject:
Re: [FRIAM] Beat poet defends the scientific method
Nick
Let me try this on(e)... it's because the brain is the physical
structure within which our thinking processes occur and collectively
those processes we call the 'mind'. I don't see a way to say the same
thing or anything remotely parallel, about soul, aura, the Great
Unknown and such. Is there an argument to say that the brain, or the
thinking processes don't exist in the same way we can argue that the
others don't (or might not)?
Thanks
Robert
On 5/2/10 12:52 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
</snipped>
How is banging on about mind any
different from banging on about soul, or aura, or the Great Unknown?
Nick
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org