death of the mind.
snavega at intelliwise.com
Tue Jul 20 10:14:07 EST 2004
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:SDhKc.18165$Mh.10271 at cyclops.nntpserver.com...
> GS: It isn't. Thinking is behavior.
That's one way of defining the word "thinking". But you've
got to concede that, in the age of fMRI and PET scans, this
way of seeing things is not useful anymore.
> 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.
I guess it all boils down to understand the word "thinking" in
a more broad way. Your way of seeing it seems limited to me, as
it avoids considering all brain activities that *don't* result
in external behavior.
> 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.
However, there are quite a lot of things happening inside our brains
that don't have externally visible behavior. If you're willing to
dismiss all this activity just to continue using your definition,
then you seem to be dismissing all potential progress that can be
achieved by the neurocognitive way of studying the brain. For instance,
put researcher Isabel Gauthier to look at the pattern of activations
of a fMRI scan and she will tell you if the subject is thinking about
human faces or not (even if the subject remains silent).
More information about the Neur-sci