Andy,
Thank you very much for your courteous and civil reply. Actually, your
phrasing requires discussion. I don't know which people "take brain images
as a primary source of knowledge" -- maybe "brain mapping" (used in MRI)?
That is not, however, an accurate description of my praxis. In my
particular experience, cognitive description combines brain wave production
and control with digital imaging and other bio-feedback material, which can
be correlated with extra-sensory (not perceivable by average humans)
abilities, i.e. the sound sensitivity of dogs, some humans, etc., the smell
sensitivity of some dogs, cats, and some humans as well as the sight
sensitivity of some creatures, such as falcons and some humans, has been
documented and recorded digitally, digitally imaged and used medically to
provide scaffolding for a higher level of human knowledge, and used
collaboratively for a deeper understanding of enzymes, hormones, etc., and
psychological remedies for certain disorders,(and other uses far beyond my
ken) So I don't think I speak for a group who "takes brain images as a
primary source of knowledge". At the same time, some of us use this material
educationally, to manage stress, to learn to focus, or to toggle the
attention switch from close scan to wide scan (see Brain Math? Not sure of
title, but it is a program designed to help kids master ADD or ADHD without
drugs) and to improve performance on tests. I have a feeling that "we" who
enjoy the discussions here at this site (many of whom lurk silently)
represent quite a variety of groups, so we might clarify and define our
discourse strategy as cooperative.
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 3:41 PM
To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: 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