[Xmca-l] Re: is the mind a function of the brain?

[Jaana Pirkkalainen]

Hi Jose,

more from a natural science perspective on the question of "the mind" I 
would recommend you works of Daniel C. Dennett.

- Jaana Pirkkalainen




15.01.2014 06:11, Larry Purss kirjoitti:
> The consensus seems to be that there is a long history and multiple
> *traditions* explaining what mind *is*. It may be that *mind* as an *is*
> object is an abstraction from the continually developing genres describing
> what mind *is*. By tracing the multiple explanations [and interpretations,
> and evaluations] of mind as an *is* we may gain a deeper perspective on
> this abstracting process itself that points beyond *mind* and extends
> *mind* into emerging sociohistorical figurations [and re-figurations] of
> what mind *is*.
>
> The book [Between Ourselves] by Evan Thompson offers another alternative
> thesis explaining that mind as a scientific *object* is an abstraction from
> [and therefore presupposes] consciousness as implicitly an intersubjective
> phenomena. [second person perspective.]
>
>   It may be that 1st person and 2nd person and 3rd person accounts are all
> abstractions from a process that extends beyond any of these reductions.
> Therefore, we return to *traditions* of mind as multiple genres and the
> modern scientific explanations of *mind* as needing to be re-figured in
> dialogue with these multiple genres that have become sedimented artifacts
> of what mind *is*
>
> As Martin said,
> "you pays your money, you make your choice"
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Jose,
>> I've always thought a strength of SCT/CHAT has been the commitment to a
>> non-dualist ontology - meaning that mind and body (ideal and material) are
>> not split apart. In some ways this sounds similar to SFL, but I would also
>> suspect that the SFL approach is more of a materialist approach, but I may
>> be wrong about that. SCT's other great strength is that it isn't
>> reductively materialist. Rather, SCT/CHAT includes the social and
>> historical in the mind/brain.
>>
>> But having said that, you could probably talk to 10 different SCT/CHAT
>> folks and get 10 different theories of mind.
>>
>> One of my favorite explanations, though, can be found in Martin Packer's
>> book The Science of Qualitative Research. In it you will find an engagement
>> with the long history of dualist and non-dualist ontologies. There isn't as
>> much explicitly about mind in the book, but it's in there.
>>
>> -greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:47 AM, jose david herazo <jherazo4@hotmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'm writing the final chapter of my PhD dissertation about the role of
>>> academic concepts in students' oral production and development of a
>> second
>>> language (L2 ). Since my study is grounded on both sociocultural theory
>> and
>>> systemic functional linguistics (SFL), one of my committee members
>>> suggested a possible contradiction in what each theory views as mind.
>>> SFLers, for instance, consider that there is no need for something called
>>> the mind that is different from the brain. They prefer to talk in terms
>> of
>>> 'higher order semiotic consciousness' (HAlliday, 2004: The language of
>>> science) rather than mind. On their terms, the mind is a function of the
>>> brain. What is the mind for SCT? Is it the inner plane, consciousness?
>> Has
>>> anybody discussed what this concept refers to in sociocultural theory?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions and comments are welcome,
>>>
>>> JOSE DAVID HERAZO RIVERA
>>>
>>> Foreign Languages Department, Universidad de Córdoba
>>> (Montería - Colombia)
>>>
>>> Carrera 6 No. 76-103. Tel:  7860500 - 7909800
>>>
>>> www.unicordoba.edu.co
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Visiting Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>