Nice way to put it Robert. Nick, is it really your position that nothing goes on inside the head? How can you take that position? Lots of neuron firings take place inside the head. I imagine you aren't denying that -- only that neuron firings do not constitute "thinking" -- whatever that means. I imagine that saying what that means is where you and Robert (and I) disagree. But I've been around this track with you before. I'll leave it to Robert this time. He seems to be making good progress.
-- Russ On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]) > 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 <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <[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]) > 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 >
============================================================ 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
