Glen said: "Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it would be that we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind" moves around, sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread very thin. And that dynamism would be critical."
So, there are a few varieties of that right now, that are trying to get along well together. Emobidied Cognition, Enactivism, Ecological Psychlogy, Extended Cognition, etc. As a starting point for that work, especially for the more mathematically inclined, I recommend "Radical Embodied Cognitive Science" by Tony Chemero <http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-reading-group-chemero-2009-radical.html>, for the more philosophically inclined, I recommend "Radicalizing Enactivism" by Dan Hutto <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/radicalizing-enactivism>, and for the more general thinker interested in an overview of cool ideas I recommend "Beyond the Brain" by Louise Barrett <http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/beyond-brain-review-out.html> . ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist American University - Adjunct Instructor <echar...@american.edu> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:46 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what school I'm in. But neither of those positions seems > right to me. I tend to believe in (quasi)cycles and flows. E.g. when I'm > dreaming, my mind is inside me. When I'm engrossed in some activity, my > mind is spread over both inside and outside ... as if the skin between me > and the world is gone. Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it > would be that we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind" > moves around, sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread > very thin. And that dynamism would be critical. > > To boot, I would suggest that anyone *without* such dynamism would look > like a Philosophical Zombie to me. > > On 5/5/20 1:40 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, if epigenesis, emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that > what goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the > organism does. What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which > "mind" is a model of. Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others > that mind is "of" the organism. Eric and I are in that latter school, and > I think you are, too, but I shouldn't presume. If you are, then I expect > you will join me in believing that the outards and the innards of an > organism ate mostly different realms of discourse with some contingent but > few necessary connections between them. > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/