death of the mind.
Allan C Cybulskie
allan.c.cybulskie at yahoo.ca
Sun Jul 18 17:18:55 EST 2004
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SDhKc.18165$Mh.10271 at cyclops.nntpserver.com...
> SN: Let's then change that to "patterns of activations" as determined by
> fMRI, for instance. Would it make any difference?
> GS: That's stupid - it misses the whole point. The point is that when you
> instruct people to think about behaving in a particular fashion, much of
> what goes on in the brain is like what goes on when the person engages in
> the full-blown action. It makes sense that it should be like this, since
> thinking is behavior. When we privately do things - talking, seeing, etc.
> are doing some of the same things that we do when we engage in the more
> public aspects of these sorts of responses.
So the question is: why should I subordinate private to public behaviour
instead of saying that the private behaviour is the primary notion, and that
the public is just a less inhibited form of that?
More information about the Neur-sci