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

[Larry Purss]

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
>