Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Rod,
To continue this theme and the contributions of Luria.
 I took Martin's advice and looked up Joaquin Fuster, a neuroscientist, who
is working within an orientation that has a family resemblance with Luria.
[functional systems that MAY correlate cognitive psychology with cortex
structures and functions]
 Fuster is articulating a model of the cortex as a *network* which
challenges models of the cortex as composed of localized substructures each
with its own unique function.
Fuster and Luria are exploring gestalts or holistic forms of cognitive and
cortex structure.

Joquin in 2003 wrote the book "Context and Mind: Unifying Cognition"
On page 16 he wrote;

"Cognitive functions have NO DEFINITE cortical topography. Nonetheless,
even if the five functions to be considered later in this book SHARE the
same structural substrate, they will be discussed in separate chapters. The
main reason for their separate discussion is the compelling assumption of
different neural mechanisms for each, even though they are closely ENTWINED
with one another. To wit, perception is PART OF the acquistion and
retrieval of memory; memory stores information ACQUIRED by perception;
language and memory depend on each other, language and logical reasoning
are special forms of cognitive action; attention SERVES all other
functions; intelligence is SERVED BY all; and so on. In conclusion, for
reasons of methodology, temporal or spatial ORDER needs to be analyzed
separately for each function. This is also true for the neural mechanisms
that support both the ORDER and the function. Separate analyses and
mechanisms do NOT, however, imply separate neuroanatomical substrates.
...Any ... cortical network can serve several cognitive functions"

Rod, the above approach I see overlapping your comment,
 "We don't simply take in perceptual information and pass it through a
series of processes to extract information from it, instead we actively
anticipate what we are likely to experience and check our perceptions
against these predictive models, paying attention only to aspects where
there is a mismatch."

Joquin Fuster has a chapter on "extracortical" functions which are entwined
with cortical functioning as holistic gestalts. I am reading Fuster while
holding in mind the question of *sense* as "perception and action mediated
through affect-motive" as a triad forming a single UNITY or cell.
Experiences within social practices [living drama] as the extracortical
context within which the cortex *develops* through learning. Luria
exploring the same question as Fuster, wondering if there are correlations
between the unity of cognitive functioning with the unity of cortex
functioning that are gestalts.

For those interested in phylogeny, chapter 2 gives an interesting synopsis
of the development of the cortex within living forms, and also gives a
synopsis of the ontogeny of the cortex prenatally and in the infant.

I would like to share a metaphor that keeps this exploration of
correlations in perspective. Buddhists notion of "mind" questions
the material linking of the physical brain and mind. They use the metaphor
of a light switch and the production of light. Switch up-light on. Switch
down-light off. Switch up-light on. There IS a strong correlation.
Therefore the switch must be the *cause* of the light source?
Now if you smash the light switch with a hammer, the lightbulb no longer
emits light. THEREFORE the switch must be the source of the light.

Buddhists see an anology.
How we envision the cortex and mind AND how we envision the switch and
 emitting light. Buddhists acknowledge the correlation between cortex and
mind and acknowledge that if the cortex is damaged, mind is profoundly
affected.
Buddhists still have profound doubts about locating mind IN the cortex.
Light does not exist IN the light switch, and mind does not exist IN the
cortex. However, without the cortex, mind will not shine through.

This analogy is only to generate *wonder* and leave the question *open*.
It was not meant as an explanation.

Larry








On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:

> I am reading a fascinating article by Andy Clark - 'Whatever next?
> Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science'
> BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2013) 36, 181–253
> doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000477 - not specifically focused on education but
> offering a powerful set of arguments for understanding cognitive processes
> (including perception and action) as always involving both top-down and
> bottom-up components. We don't simply take in perceptual information and
> pass it through a series of processes to extract information from it,
> instead we actively anticipate what we are likely to experience and check
> our perceptions against these predictive models, paying attention only to
> aspects where there is a mismatch. This is grossly oversimplifying a
> complex argument but I think it does relate to questions about neuroscience
> and education because it clearly shows that what we already know (a product
> of our experience - always social and always cultural) directly informs the
> way our brains process new information. We have our (unique) genetic
> biology but we also have our (unique) history which makes our perezhivanie
> - what we understand from our experience - unique to us. Some aspects of
> neuroscience can help us to challenge the simplistic, 'mind as machine'
> models which neuroscience has tended to encourage (mainly among people who
> are not involved in it).
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin John Packer
> Sent: 27 July 2013 23:28
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience
>
> Yes, it seems to me that some of the best evidence against a simple
> preprogrammed maturational account of brain development has come from
> neuroscience itself. Equally, some of the most interesting theorizing and
> research exploring alternatives to the computational model of the brain and
> the representational model of mind is coming from neuroscientists.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 11:46 AM, "Hansen, Monica" <
> monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Andy, and others. Interesting discussion. Some good sources. One
> consideration:
> >
> > Pharmaceutical implications are NOT the only result of understanding the
> contribution of neuroscience in education! Although I have seen
> neuroscientists include this in their discussion (especially for dyslexia
> and adhd).
> >
> > One implication of neuroscience for teachers in the classroom with
> individual students is a greater understanding of normal, individual
> variation for complex functions like reading and writing. In working to
> understand neuroanatomy of meaningful language, one finds that current
> research supports more structures being involved rather than identifying
> one localized region for speech production.  Rather than considering
> development as predetermined, development is considered ongoing. The social
> and cultural influence in an individual's cortical organization is huge!
> Current neuroscience supports what Bella Kotik-Friedgut refers to from
> Luria as "extracortical" organization, the notion that the cortex is
> reorganized from without the individual. Development of the brain is not
> predetermined for our students just because of genetics. What we become and
> are is not reduced to chemicals, is not a function of time(maturity) in the
> mechanistic sense, but arises from the ability of our nervous systems as
> dynamic, growing and changing within larger systems.
> >
> > Monica Hansen
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:00 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience
> >
> > 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_de
> >>>> velopment
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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_de
> >>>> velopment#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>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts
> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails
> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
> by an official order form.
>
>
>
>