Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience

[Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>]

Andy,
I'm doubtful of your premise that brain science will ever get to this point.

For a literary response along these lines, see Dostoevsky's Crime and
Punishment and Raskolnikov's insistence that man is not a piano-key and if
proven so, he would go crazy just to show otherwise - or was it
Svidragailov that said this?

>From a scientific standpoint I think that the potential predictions of
brain science run into a problem of complexity. There are more potential
connections in the brain than there are particles in the universe. This
makes every brain into an incredibly complex organism and makes prediction
unlikely due what Chaos theorists call the Butterfly Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Chaos theory - a last defense of human freedom?

Or perhaps Quantum Physics?
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/fnint-06-0009321.pdf

Frankly, I'm much happier with the 19th century Russian writer's response.
Hate to be the *raskol* to the neuroscience craze.

Всего хорошего,
-greg



On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I would like to suggest a thought experiment.
> Suppose that neuroscience had progressed to a point where every
> psychological phenomenon has been traced to a specific formation in the
> brain. (This is of course very far from the case. Even dramatic
> psychological disorders are often invisible to neuroscience, but just
> suppose. ....)
>
> What then?
>
> It could help faciitate new pharamceutical and surgical cures for
> psychological disorders.
> So instead of better teaching, we could administer drugs to children so
> they learn faster, or something??
> It is only surgical and pharmceutical interventions that require
> neuroscientific knowledge. Oherwise, stories about the brain just function
> as rationalisations, for doing things which can be explained and tested
> without reference to the brain,
>
> Andy
>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>> On 24 July 2013 16:45, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 24 July 2013 16:35, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Huw,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the indications. Any "recent" (10 years or so)  research
>>>> dealing with the data made available by the knew scan technologies?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Wagner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nothing that I've come across.  I haven't expected to find anything
>>> though, so haven't looked with any diligence.
>>>
>>> Christine had some thoughts on biological developments a while back.
>>>
>>> *ANY* studies on genetic process are of merit here, I believe. it doesn't
>>> have to be the brain.  Note that this is looking at "natural phenomena"
>>> rather than artificial phenomena alone.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Dynamic Systems Theory may be worth exploring -- I haven't looked yet.
>>
>> Travieso, Ch. 6, The Cambridge Handbook of Socialcultural Psychology,
>> (Eds)
>> Valsiner & Rosa.
>>
>> Best,
>> Huw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 24 July 2013 16:23, Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Ulvi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any work you recommend for beginner's and or a must have/read in the
>>>>>> library?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to get a broader sense of human development using Vygotsky
>>>>>> as core and searching for recent readings in different fields like
>>>>>> Philosophy (Ilyenkov) and History (People's history of the world by
>>>>>> Chris Harman), But still lacking a clue on "phylogeny" and
>>>>>> neuroscience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wertsch, Vygotsky and the formation of mind -- genetic domains.
>>>>> Waddington, Genetic Assimilation.
>>>>> Batson, genetic/ecological processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The recent documents from Luria cover some "basics" which are typically
>>>>> missed in this line of research.  Luria's research is predominantly
>>>>> functional (of a v. high calibre).  It seems to be dialectic in an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Engels
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> kind of way.  But the functional explanations stand up for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Huw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wagner
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, there is a strong neuroscience in Russia in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> line of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Alexander Romanovitch's work, Homskaya and his many other students
>>>>>>> continued his work a lot.
>>>>>>> Ulvi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013/7/24 Wagner Luiz Schmit <wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Huw,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like that text pretty much (I always returned to it in our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> research
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> group in Brazil and I will present it again this week to our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> research
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> group in Japan). And this text, acording to Leontiev, is from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1930...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But at the same time Leontiev, in a letter from this same year (if I
>>>>>>>> am not mistaken again) points to divergent way of thinking between
>>>>>>>> him, Luria and Vygotsky... I unfortunately know very little about
>>>>>>>> Luria (just read some texts) and even less about today Russian
>>>>>>>> neuroscience, does this proposal by Vygotsky continues in Luria? And
>>>>>>>> returning to the main topic, there is still neuroscience following
>>>>>>>> these guidelines?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wagner
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Huw Lloyd <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24 July 2013 15:38, Wagner Luiz Schmit <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wagner.schmit@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Larry,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please say more... I think this is so important, and things
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> point out
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that Vygotsky also, otherwise why enter the Medicine course in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1930
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (if my memory is not wrong)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wagner
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "On Psychological Systems", collected works of LSV, v.3, p.105
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In actual fact, it seems to me that by introducing the concept of
>>>>>>>>> psychological system in the form we discussed, we get a splendid
>>>>>>>>> possibility of conceiving the real connections, the real complex
>>>>>>>>> relationships that exist."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "To a certain degree this also holds true for one of the most
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> difficult
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> problems -- the localization of higher psychological systems."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Larry Purss <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ulvi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned you are interested in *cognitive CHANGE*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Within the concept  *neuroplasticity* is implicit Nero change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a scholar in France [Catherine Malabou] whose central
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> conceptual
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thesis explores *plasticity* as from the Greek *to mold  or to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> model.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She moves the concepts of *dynamic* and *systems* and *theory*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *neural*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> within the orbit of the central thesis of plasticity as change,
>>>>>>>>>>> transformation and metamorphosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if this is too far off topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also want to mention *neo-Piagetian* theory including
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein is being explored at SIMON Fraser University.
>>>>>>>>>>> If interested I could say more.
>>>>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Ulvi İçil <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ulvi.icil@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy and all, I found Kurt Fisher, he is at Harvard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mind,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Education.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is described as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Neo-Piagetian_theories_of_**
>>>> cognitive_development<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Piagetian_theories_of_cognitive_development>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Fischer's theory differs from the other neo-Piagetian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> theories in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of respects. One of them is in the way it explains cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, although Fischer does not deny the operation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> processing constrains on development, he emphasizes on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> environmental
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and social rather than individual factors as causes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> explain developmental change he borrowed two classic notions
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vygotsky,[12]<
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Neo-Piagetian_theories_of_**
>>>> cognitive_development#cite_**note-12<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Piagetian_theories_of_cognitive_development#cite_note-12>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is, internalization and the zone of proximal development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am rather interested in the application of the new findings
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> field
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of educational neuroscience into the theory and practice of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ulvi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/7/23 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ulvi, best of luck in your search, and maybe someone on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> help. But don't get your hopes up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence Barsalou is a very sophisticated writer on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> neuroscience,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Barsalou, L. W. (1992) “Cognitive Psychology. An Overview
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists,” Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where he has a chapter on education, he characterises
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “teachers provide information that students incorporate into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> knowledge” - in other words, not only does he use "folk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology" in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grasp of the subtlties of education, but he seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> unaware
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> antiquated "theory" of teaching and learning has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> subject to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> critique over the past 100 years. A classic illustration of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that Greg has been raising.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ulvi İçil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to know some outstanding scholar names in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> educational neuroscience, working in the line of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sociocultural
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ulvi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------*
>>>> *--**
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://marxists.academia.edu/****AndyBlunden<http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>
>
>


-- 
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