[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Consciousness"only a part of the material quality of the man-sign"
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness"only a part of the material quality of the man-sign"
- From: "Vera Steiner" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:36:44 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com><4ABE00F0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <8521DD24-5295-48F7-88F0-EAEC2EE63B0C@duq.edu>
- Reply-to: Vera Steiner <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
I always wondered why "inside" in its strictest interpretation, that of the
brain/mind that is not accessible to unmediated eye sight should be such a
pervasive metaphor.Now, the "inner" is becoming more accessible with CAT
scans, X-ray, imaging, etc, should it still be called "inside?" Theories are
not immune to technological change, and this which is so loaded an issue,
we are stuck in an old dichotomy. Why is stone the best example for matter?
Why not blood that also changes with environmental, physiological and
pathological variables? It changes as does the brain/mind through action,
through aging, through education, through the increasing, sophisticated
understanding of meanings. All of these changes take place with people, or
by and through their uses of signs and symbols, which are the consequences
of their prior, collective actions? Is material only that which we can
touch, but not what we create, including our minds which we create
in.interaction with others?
The categorical distinction between Cs and matter baffles me, The
discussion is still governed, I believe on both sides, by the old difference
between in here, that voice in my head, or those images, which are no longer
inaccessible, no longer "inner" in the old sense of the word when
approached with material tools and the grass outside. But, it seems we
cannot help but be snared by its pervasive, metaphoric power..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Packer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness"only a part of the material quality of the
You're misrepresenting what I wrote, and why I wrote it. I am indeed
arguing that all representational systems are material. Yet I find
myself dealing constantly with colleagues who believe that psychology
must study non-material representational systems. That to understand
children's development, for example, requires studying their 'internal,'
'mental' representations. I was citing Donald's work as an example that
does a good job of explaining human cognitive development (historical
rather than ontogenetic, but that's not an important difference in this
context) with reference only to representational systems that are
material. Plus brain functioning, construed in non- representational ways.
No tautology here, and no problem.
On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
Martin referred to a series of "representational systems" being all
"material"; I pointed out that Martin had already said that
*everything*, even consciousness, was material so the statement that
these representational systems were material was a "motherhood
statement", i.e., a tautology.
So I responded "show me a representational system which is *not*
material" which is a problem for Martin because he says that everything
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list