[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience - from Mike Cole
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience - from Mike Cole
- From: mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0700
- In-reply-to: <51F7CEB8.email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <51F72F94.firstname.lastname@example.org> <51F73627.email@example.com> <1375194373.69569.YahooMailNeo@web181205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51F7CEB8.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
"Mind is a non-accidental mosaic" ARLura, Nature of Human conflicts.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mozaic is fine by me. That was the kind of image I had in mind.
> Peg Griffin wrote:
>> As I see Luria’s dual stimulation, Andy, you have to go beyond the idea
>> of sub-systems. It’s mosaics, I’m afraid.
>> Two actions closely related yes. But, in fact, the first one has some
>> hidden attributes (or maybe some hiding states) and so you barge in with
>> the second closely related in some (maybe odd) way– seemingly abandoning
>> the first – and the hidden or hiding in the first can be made observable.
>> So whether Luria thinks about a clinician or a diagnostician or an actively
>> engaged patient, the dual stimulation method can serve one well.
>> Zasetsky, for instance, learned a way to recognize printed letters/words
>> (a picture visualization as I recall) in spite of massive brain damage but
>> sometimes it failed (some part was hidden from use) so he’d appear to
>> abandon the first stimulation and start up the second stimulation (maybe
>> reciting the letters in some order). The second was so closely yoked to
>> the first that sooner or later there’d be a sort of collision. Using the
>> second stimulation, he’d sooner or later get to the letter that had been
>> “hiding” when he had been relying on his first stimulation so whoosh the
>> second stimulation would now be interrupted and abandoned by the not really
>> ever abandoned first simulation and he could go back to recognizing letters
>> and getting the words in the print using his preferred first system.
>> *From:* Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 11:42 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience - from Mike Cole
>> So we have 4 distinct but interrelated concepts: system, model, unit of
>> analysis and method.
>> I will try to formulate a view on unit of analysis and method.
>> The idea of "artefact-mediated (collaborative) action" as a unit of
>> analysis (a generalisation of "word meaning") is the basis for the "method
>> of dual stimulation," as I see it.
>> Once you have a concept of that S - X - R triangle, as the unit of
>> action, then it suggests a method of investigation based on offering the
>> auxilliary stimulus, the artifact X, to the subject, S, to assist them to
>> complete the task, R. By varying teh artefact X and the task R,
>> investigation of S is possible.
>> Likewise, let us suppose that you see the mind as a psychological system
>> made up of functional subsystems each of which are interconnected,
>> irrespective of whether the subsystem in question itself produces
>> observable phenomena. This could be represented in a diagram, too,
>> something like S -> Ssys1 ---> Ssys2 -> R, meaning that every subsystem
>> (Ssys1) is connected with every other (Ssys2), and disturbance of Ssys1
>> will cause a disturbance to Ssys2, which may be manifeted in an observable
>> response, R.
>> So the implication of this is that the "unit of analysis" of an entire
>> psychological system is two functional subsystems with an interconnection.
>> Ssys1 --- Ssys2.
>> This is not trivial, because much of Ssys1 will not be observable, and
>> this unit of analysis allows the investigator to study Ssys1 by means of
>> the observable responses via Ssys2.
>> The unit of analysis suggests the method.
>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>> > I think the issue is HOW one makes observable the "unintended motor
>> responses", Andy.
>> > The issue of whether the combined motor *method* is a unit of analysis.
>> I think it is a method.
>> > what whole is it the simplest instance of? It is a method for being
>> able to identify with some degree of certainty what another person is
>> thinking about. Help me get from there to what it is a unit of analysis of.
>> > mike
>> > ps- why is this not on xmca....
>> > (Andy mistakenly sent his previous message to Mike alone. This is just
>> to put it all back on xmca)
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts