I agree with Ed here also. But here is another way to promote critical
thinking: Explore the problem of reification in psych and social sciences;
that is, the tendency to treat abstract terms and hypothetical process words
as if they are fixed things. Much of the historical work on consciousness,
mind, etc., implied dynamic, on-going processes more in keeping with what we
may learn from neuro, but it is fascinating to see how our language efforts
promote static images of such ideas. Again, I think students might benefit
from such discussion of the treatment of these concepts. Gary Peterson
-----Original Message-----
From: Pollak, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tips (post) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 12:07 PM
Subject: Distinction between different meanings of consciousness
>
>Jeff Ricker asked: "Has anyone ever seen a discussion of this distinction
>between the everyday and psychological meanings of the term "unconscious"?
"
>
>
>Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral
>Mind" has a favbulous discussion of consciousness in one of the early
>chapters. It's especially useful for making a distinction that I favor:
> i.e., that it's a mistake to think of consciousness as a "state." You're
>much better off thinking of it as a process. In other words, it's
>"something we do" (like addition) rather than a "state you enter" (like
>sleep).
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Office (610)436-2945
>Professor and Chairperson Home (610)363-1939
>Department of Psychology FAX (610)436-2846
>West Chester University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>West Chester, PA 19383 www.wcupa.edu
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Husband, father, biopsychologist and bluegrass fiddler...........
>not necessarily in order of importance. AAFOUF#0064
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
