No subject


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

David Fearon
Dept. of Sociology
University of California, Santa Barbara

6500fear at ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list