RE: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education

["valerie A. Wilkinson" <vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp>]

Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
While we are talking about this subject, especially in the light of many of
the strands that have been going on, we know that in the United States, a
lot of "problems" are "solved" with Ritalin, and about the staggering
increase in Autism, the lamentable effects of "No Child Left Behind" (and
how Orwellian Doublespeak is being used to make awful things sound
virtuous).  The discussion about kindergartners working with supervised
zoped was engrossing! 

We know that countries other than the US are managing education more
effectively than we are, and that systems based on various premises are
standing on their own feet, as it were.  We know that (see Andy's reference
to being a union negotiator) we bring different kinds of expertise to the
problems that face us, and we have been doing so all along (see Kropotkin). 

As a neurobabbler myself, I don't think it is particularly helpful to
characterize those of us long time educators as psychobabblers (Richard Dean
Rosen's word), neurobabblers, etc. spouting jargon and buzzwords, when to
us, these are terms which have precise meanings relating to describable mind
states. It is known that mind states described millennia ago (citations? Cf.
Sanscrit/Zen/yoga.  I can give a raft of books but not now) have been
photographed (brain waves) and charted digitally with advanced computer
software and equipment.  In the discussion of cognition and cognitive
science, AI, psychology, psychology, education, neuroscience, and medicine
all have a valid claim to a place at the round table.

Starting the discussion (dialogue?) with name-calling "babble" and "let us
concede them their toys" (grant to natural science that consciousness is an
illusion) isn't going to immediately get us to a new level. 
Valerie

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:38 AM
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education

I think this result (that doing, perceiving and imagining the same 
action involves a lot of the same neurological activity) is well-known 
and well-established, Larry, and is something that was established by 
observng behaviour in cleverly designed experimental set-ups, long 
before the neuroscientists observed it with their machinery.

But on the other hand remember that this business of "clusters of 
neurons firing" is an incredibly blunt instrument. It's a bit like 
listening to a World Cup match over the radio hoping to hear what your 
friend in Bay 13 is saying. It actually adds almost nothing to a 
psychological observation when neurobabblers and their journalistic 
spokepeople add a kind of caption to a report of a psychological 
observation to the effect that the MRI machine showed activity in 
such-and-such part of the brain. So what?

Andy

Larry Purss wrote:
> Andy
> I also agree that we must account for processes at the neurological 
> level from a CHAT perspective.  Are you aware of Vittorio Gallese's 
> work with George Lakoff. It is not a CHAT focus but he 
> suggests  particular clusters of neurons  fire when an act such as 
> grasping is physically carried out, when the act of grasping is 
> "perceived" or when the act of grasping is "imagined."  He suggests 
> the same clusters of neurons fire  for all 3 distinct processes 
> [physical action, perception, and imagination]. I don't have the 
> background to decide if this perspective may be relevant/ but it is 
> curious to think that these 3 processes at the neuronal level share 
> similar firing patterns. /
> // 
> /Larry/
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Monica, even though David pointed out that the hegemonic discourse
>     is ruthless in repressing its opposition, my days of being a union
>     negotiator taught me that even a victorious discourse needs a
>     "golden bridge", i.e., a way the side confronted with defeat can
>     snatch dignity and seeming compromise from the jaws of defeat.
>     David's explanation also included "coming to accommodate the
>     interests of the other schools while still preserving the essence
>     of its own unique perspective." Another lesson from my union
>     negotiator days: always remember that the other side is not
>     homogeneous, ...
>
>     I am really interested in developing lines of argument which
>     preserve the essence of CHAT but accommodate in some way the
>     claims of neurobabble. A line I have floated here without response
>     is to grant to natural science that consciousness is an illusion,
>     which it is in natural science terms and Vygotsky says exactly
>     this. But it sounds very strange to our ears. Because it is the
>     central concept of psychology.
>
>     Andy
>
>
>     Monica Hansen wrote:
>
>         David,
>         I like this idea of preparadigmatic here. I hope I live long
>         enough to see
>         some convergence in these theories. The only problem is that a
>         lot of people
>         are going to have to admit they were wrong. Many glorious
>         careers and fine
>         reputations are at stake. But that is the nature of a
>         paradigmatic shift.
>         Feelings are hurt, people are beheaded, excommunicated...it
>         was bound to
>         happen.
>
>         Monica
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
>         [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>] On
>         Behalf Of David H Kirshner
>         Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:46 PM
>         To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>         Subject: RE: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
>
>         Larry,
>
>         Here's my sociology of science account of the rise of brain
>         studies as a
>         substitute for learning theory.
>
>         1. In Kuhnian terms, psychology is a preparadigmatic science. For
>         instance, learning is variously studied in behavioral, cognitive,
>         developmental, and sociocultural schools that conceive of
>         learning in
>         fundamentally distinct ways.
>         2. The grand motive of preparadigmatic science is establishment of
>         paradigmatic consensus. Each school is in competition with the
>         others to
>         unify the field under its umbrella by coming to accommodate the
>         interests of the other schools while still preserving the
>         essence of its
>         own unique perspective. Most often this competition is
>         implicit, but
>         periodically it leads to open conflict as in Chomsky's
>         repudiation of
>         Skinner's effort to account for "Verbal Behavior," or in the
>         flare up in
>         the late '90s between James Greeno and John Anderson and
>         company over
>         cognitivist efforts to account for the situated character of
>         learning.
>         3. The dominant paradigm in any period always is the one to most
>         strenuously pursue hegemonic designs on the field. The
>         cognitivists'
>         embracing of the rhetoric of situativity has cost them dearly:
>         they no
>         longer can forefront the technical machinery of information
>         processing
>         theory and artificial intelligence computer simulation as
>         their central
>         technical method and theoretical thrust. This is really a
>         crisis point
>         for cognitivists. They gained prominence through the Information
>         Processing approach, and are coasting along on their reputation.
>         Embracing brain science enables them to maintain the surface
>         features of
>         dynamic "science," while providing a convenient disguise for
>         the fact
>         that there's no longer a central metaphor for learning that is
>         being
>         elaborated and developed by that community.
>
>         4. Projecting this forward a decade or so, we have the
>         likelihood of
>         diminishment of the importance of the cognitivist umbrella,
>         and renewed
>         opportunity for the other schools to push toward the front of
>         the pack.
>         ...should be lots of fun.
>
>         David
>
>
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
>         [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>]
>         On Behalf Of Larry Purss
>         Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:37 AM
>         To: lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>; eXtended
>         Mind, Culture, Activity
>         Subject: Re: [xmca] Brains, Computer, and the Future of Education
>
>         Mike,
>
>         The band wagon may not be a strong enough metaphor.  The image
>         of a
>         steam
>         roller seems more accurate.  I mentioned earlier that the term
>         ZPD is
>         now a
>         recognized term in many school settings [as scaffolding].
>          However this
>         alternative metaphor of mind as computer or mind  as brain is
>         a far more
>         powerful metaphor in schools. Often school staffs are
>         fascinated with
>         these
>         explanations and believe that neuroscience is finally getting
>         to the
>         "heart"
>         of the matter [couldn't resist the contradictary metaphor]. Brain
>         science as
>         an explanation of learning is becoming   the dominant narrative in
>         many school debates.  I was wondering if there are any
>         "simplified'
>         articles
>         for a general audience that engage with these neuro/brain
>         metaphors that
>         would lead to school staffs possibly having a dialogue [by
>         introducing
>         dought]  I have shared a few articles with interested staff
>         who love
>         ideas
>         but they were too "theoretical" for a staff discussion.
>
>         With this steam roller comes the call for justifying your
>         practice in
>         schools by using "best practices" which are "evidence based".
>          This
>         evidence often is dominated by evidence from neuroscience
>
>          I have attempted to introduce sociocultural perspectives into the
>         debate in
>          response to the neuro/brain social representations of
>         learning but I
>         would
>         appreciate an  article for a general audience that I could
>         hand out to
>         start
>         a dialogue among school staffs.
>
>         Mike, I believe this frame of reference is not a "fad" or a
>         "band wagon"
>         but is developing into a "conventionalized" metaphor which most
>         educators
>         may use to explain "learning" in  schools.  Fad indicates a
>         transitory
>         phenomena and neuroscience seems a longer lasting  phenomena.
>
>         I am looking for an article that does not refute or contradict the
>         neuroscience explanations but rather LINKS the  ideas to
>         sociocultural
>         concepts.
>
>         One of the principals in a school I work in is attending this
>         conference,
>         and principals do have influence in school cultures.  I hope to
>         influence
>         her.
>
>         Larry
>
>         On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:07 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
>         <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>          
>
>             The bandwagon is visible coming over the horizon!
>             Check it out at
>             http://www.learningandthebrain.com/brain28.html.
>             Join for just the price of a click and a clack.
>             mike
>             __________________________________________
>             _____
>             xmca mailing list
>             xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>             http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>                
>
>         __________________________________________
>         _____
>         xmca mailing list
>         xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>         http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>         __________________________________________
>         _____
>         xmca mailing list
>         xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>         http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>         __________________________________________
>         _____
>         xmca mailing list
>         xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>         http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>          
>
>
>     -- 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Hegel Summer School: The New Atheism: Just Another Dogma?
>     <http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/hss2011.htm>
>
>     __________________________________________
>     _____
>     xmca mailing list
>     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hegel Summer School: The New Atheism: Just Another Dogma? 
<http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/hss2011.htm>

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca