On Nov 15, 7:52 pm, Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > cognitive psychology has a role in finding out what to look for in the > meantime. There have been many applied uses for research findings of > cognitive psychology that neuropsychology might not have discovered in > a hundred years.
Karl, I agree and want to add to what you just said. Here is a simplified explanation by analogy of how cognitive science and neuropsychological might work together to help each other advance. Imagine what came first, the understanding of how a pulley and a lever worked from tool use or how a skeletal muscle contraction moves the parts of animal and human bodies. It could have worked either way, but I would bet that levers and pulleys were first understood from tool use. The reason I think that simple mechanical principles were first learned form tools use is that the dead animal, which is your dinner, is very complex. It would be hard to notice that the muscle, tendons and bones worked together as a simple pulley and third class lever. However a spear is a very old weapon that is sometimes used as a third class lever with the front hand to move the tip up and down, left or right very quickly while back hand functions as the fulcrum. If “leverage” is required, the front hand moves close to the spear tip and works as the fulcrum, while the back hand exerts the force. Simple pulleys were likely to have been used to lift and suspend dead animals from tree branches, where they could be butchered. These pulleys would have consisted of a rope slung over a tree branch. It is easier for me to believe to believe that these principles (the simply pulley to change direction and the third degree lever for speed) were fist recognized in primitive tools than in a dead or living vertebrate. Once these simple principles were recognized in the both the inorganic and organic world, reverse engineering could occur (observing and taking apart animals and humans to refine principles and learn new ones.) As a side effect, the recognition of the similarity between man’s creations and the rest of the world led some people to believe that the world must have been created by superman. Even if these principles were recognized in animals first a feedback loop now exists because building machines from reverse engineering life forms yields new information, which has helped biologists discover more about animals (and even plants). With modern science, this also allows for controlled experimentation to better understand principles. The world of the living is so messy and complex that it is hard to isolate variables, Better still, much can be learned by building machines without the need to torture and kill animals and humans. There is one caveat, however, it is all too easy to think that one understands or can understand all that there is too know about biology and minds in this way. Animals bodies and brains are very complex and there are likely layers and layers of things to be learned, even after much practical knowledge has been drawn out. One thing that I have come to understand recently is why the mind is more than the brain. What I believe, for good reasons, is the best scientific model of a general mind, demonstrates that mind also exists in the communication between the parts of the brain, the sensory organs and the sensed environment, which could include minds and inorganic and not mindful things, such as rocks and sand. In this model the light signals send from the sand are part of the mind, provided they windup triggering a sensory organ On Nov 15, 7:52 pm, Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason, > > The problem is that it's been impossible to "watch the brain work" > until just recently. I'm just saying that while neuropsychology > studies the brains of grasshoppers (because apparently the brains of > lab mice are too complex--not to even mention the brains of humans), > cognitive psychology has a role in finding out what to look for in the > meantime. There have been many applied uses for research findings of > cognitive psychology that neuropsychology might not have discovered in > a hundred years. > > -Karl > > On Nov 15, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Karl, > > > There are heated debate in psychology about "mentalism," etc. At the > > Association for Behavior Analysis International conference, there are > > always a few cognitive psychologists (or former cognitive > > psychologists). One of the problems with many (and probably most) > > cognitive psychologists is the over reliance on mentalistic constructs > > of the mind that are not even close to being certain or even known. > > Many of the cognitive psychology's model of the brain are not based > > (a) on watching the brain work or studying the brain directly but > > rather (b) statements that a person makes; or marks a person makes > > (writing/art/etc.). Behavior analysts just study (b) and biology/ > > brain science and refrain from creating mind models without any > > concrete evidence except for fun while not working. > > > Jason > > > On Nov 15, 2:15 am, Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree with your views on psychology (minus the straw man argument), > > > but I don't think cognitive psychology can at all be compared to > > > creationism or intelligent design. Remember that compared to other > > > sciences, psychology is relatively new. This would have to be the > > > stone age for you to compare cognitive psychology to "intelligent > > > design". > > > > Even with the recent medical breakthroughs of the past decade, > > > neuropsychology is still, literally, in the stone age. Don't get me > > > wrong. I'm going into neuropsychology myself and I can't wait for when > > > they prove that the "mind" and the "brain" are really the same thing, > > > but in the meantime there are many uses for applied cognitive > > > psychology. > > > > On Nov 13, 10:02 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > B.F. Skinner ABA 1990 > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtgkqB3DIA&feature=related > > > > > Parallel the arguments of cognitive psychologists (if you have some > > > > familiarity with cognitive psychology) with the arguments for > > > > intelligent design. > > > > > Take care, > > > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
