More Descartes stuff
(no name) ((no email))
Mon, 18 Sep 95 10:19 CDT
I agree with Peter -- we need to think of NonCartesian models of
the mind in the same way that we think of NonEuclidean geometries.
That is, we acknowldege that there is no field of psychology as we
know it with the Cartesian duality posed at least as the primal
problem, but then we see what happens when we put aside assumptions
that we once thought were necessary and fundamental.
For example, Descartes builds a model of mind that is not only
grounded on reflective thought, but one which creates a hierarchy
from reflexive bodily action up to abstract reflective thought as
the highest achievement of the mind. We see this hierarchy in
place implicitly when we watch his unraveling of the mind via
his method of doubt.
What I see in Papert is a challenging of that hierarchy. Why do
we need to assume that there is a higher-lower relation between
these modes of thinking? Why not make them addressable nodes in
a network of thinking/acting, where the balance between action and
abstract thought is regulated by the goals and the tasks at hand?
The most radical NonCartesian model of the mind in my opinion is
Peirce, who seeks to reduce the Cartesian model to a very special
form of description that can only take place when certain very
specific conditions are in place. Otherwise, we acknowledge
that the mind/body split is an artifact that allows us to build
a sense of self pretty much from the stuff of the world as we
come in contact with it.....
gary shank
gshank who-is-at niu.edu