[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



I concede your point, Valerie. I would never use that term in discussion with people who take brain images as a primary source of knowledge about the psyche. I was not aware that I could already be talking to people with that view. Cupla mia. I apologise.

Andy

valerie A. Wilkinson wrote:
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