Sun Apr 10 20:43:05 EST 2005
the forms of conscious, intentional activity humans share
with other animals, and also the special "higher-order"
consciousness that developed through symbolic
communication in human communities.
What I would like to ask readers of this board are some
of your opinions of Edelman's model of consciousness, and
how it is generally regarded in the field. I have had a
fairly extensive undergraduate background in the
neurosciences, so was able to understand Edelman's
arguments. I am not in touch with the neuroscience
community, however, and I suspect that Edelman's bold
effort was met with some skepticism, especially since
much was speculative.
I was impressed by Edelman's care in addressing the
difficult empirical and philosophical issues in trying to
bridge the gaps between human behavior and physiology,
and I think he was largely successful in avoiding the
reduction of one to the other. What I found most
impressive in Edelman's model is its compatibility with
George Herbert Mead's theories of human consciousness,
nearly point for point. Mead's 65 year-old theories form
the basis of much work in sociological social psychology,
and so the neurophysiological dimension would provide
grounds for expanding, modifying, and perhaps rejecting
portions of Mead's theory. I have noted a few limitations
in Edelman's theory, but I hope I can justify it as a
central model for further integrating these two fields.
Thank you in advance for your help
Dept. of Sociology
University of California, Santa Barbara
6500fear at ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
More information about the Neur-sci