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,
Clark University ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Robert J. Cordingley <mailto:[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;The Friday Morning Applied
Complexity Coffee Group <mailto:[email protected]>
*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,
Clark University ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================
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
