Re:[tips] Brain and Mind
Both of these systems are still mediated by the brain. Since the software/hardware controversy and plasticity are widely accepted as possible models for brain function, and discussed in the neuroscience literature, the Neurohacks article just sets up some straw men and implies that non one believes the brain is plastic. I didn't learn anything new from it. I'm preparing two papers on brain development using DTI imaging and came across three great papers. The papers by Bucker & Krienen and Neubauer & Hublin are two of a small number of papers that hit my brain like a bucket of cold water. I was hanging on every word. They represent theories of brain development that do incorporate a balance between hardware and software development (especially Buckner). Mike Williams Stiles, J., & Jernigan, T. L. (2010). The basics of brain development. Neuropsychology review, 20(4), 327-348. doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4 Buckner, R. L., & Krienen, F. M. (2013). The evolution of distributed association networks in the human brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(12), 648-665. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.017 Neubauer, S., & Hublin, J.-J. (2012). The Evolution of Human Brain Development. Evolutionary Biology, 39(4), 568-586. doi: 10.1007/s11692-011-9156-1 On 12/19/14 11:00 PM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest wrote: > (1) to have all aspects of this system's functionality hardwired, > in this case, embodied in form of individual neurons, neural > networks, and systems of neural networks, > > or > > (2) to have all aspects of this system's functionality as software, > in this case, general purpose neurons that are highly adaptable > (e.g., stem cells), that can form general purpose neural networks > that can be specialized to handle specific forms of information > (e.g., representations of visual information or auditory info or etc.), > and systems of such neural networks. > On 12/18/14 11:00 PM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > digest wrote: > With all of the wack and rank neuroscience being promoted > these days, it's easy for people to think that brain function is > that same thing as cognitive function. One popular media > article that points out some of the problems with this view is > an Neurohacks article on the BBC website; see: > > http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41205 or send a blank email to leave-41205-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Elsevier retracting 16 papers for faked peer review
Perhaps the solution to this is NOT to ask authors to suggest reviewers and have editors do their jobs. Elsevier retracting 16 papers for faked peer review retractionwatch.com - Sixteen papers are being retracted across three Elsevier journals after the publisher discovered that one of the authors, Khalid Zaman, orchestrated fake peer reviews by submitting false contact information for his suggested reviewers. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41204 or send a blank email to leave-41204-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Skinner,the Jesuits ,and Cuba
Well,SKINNER WARNED US THAT PUNISHMENT WAS THE LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY TO EXTINGUISH BEHAVIOR.WHY DId it TAKE THE U.S 5O PLUS YEARS TO REALIZE THAT? BTW,THE eL COMANDANTE AND POPE FRANCIS ARE PRODUCTS OF JESUIT EDUCATION. MICHAEL 'WAITING FOR SNOW IN HAVANA' / --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41199 or send a blank email to leave-41199-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
I'm arriving late to this one but I am a self-confessed hater of both Kohlberg and Gilligan's (useless) paradigms. I cover them grudgingly because they may come up in other/upper division courses/GREs. Moral decision making in the abstract tell us very little about how people function when faced with real-life moral dilemmas. The person who would break the law to stop abortion or get arrested in a protest rally against corporate greed is often quite happy to keep the excess change given by a harried cashier. And there is no empirical support for the idea that men and women are fundamentally different in making these decisions in the abstract or in "the field" I pray for the day when we won't have to cover this material anymore, except as a historical relic. Nancy Melucci Long Beach City College Long Beach CA -Original Message- From: Gerald Peterson To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Sent: Fri, Dec 19, 2014 10:08 am Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages Just one quick response to Chris's Q: I don't cover it in Intro or Social. I used to cover it in teaching Child and Life-span classes. Gary - Original Message - From: "Christopher Green" To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 12:55:51 PM Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages It appears to are correct, Rick. My recollection was that the different branches each led to a SINGLE answer. Not to BOTH answers. The same answers (yes or no) would ALTERNATE as ones went up the hierarchy of moral stances, but you wouldn't get BOTH answers on a single branch. I must confess that I am now a LONG way from serious debates of Kohlberg’s theory. I can’t recall it coming up in any discussion I have been involved in since probably the mid-1990s. Is it still taught in Intro and Social Psych? All that said, I think a more "ecologically valid" presentation of the kinds moral reasoning that Michael is looking for can be found in Roy Zimmerman’s song “Glory Bound Train,” a short snippet of which is here: https://bop.fm/s/roy-zimmerman/glory-bound-train-1 (Alas,the whole song does not seem to be on the internet.) :-) Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On Dec 19, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Rick Froman wrote: > I have never seen a representation of reasoning using Kohlberg's model (including explanations of the classic Heinz scenario) that didn't describe a justification at each level for opposite courses of action (steal the drug or don't steal the drug). For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma. >From the article: "From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response." It then goes on to demonstrate possible justifications for stealing or not stealing the drug at every level. > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman > Professor of Psychology > Box 3519 > x7295 > rfro...@jbu.edu > http://bit.ly/DrFroman > > -Original Message- > From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:59 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages > > Michael, > > I think you undermine the usefulness of Kohlberg's model by appearing to show that any conclusion can be reached by any path. If the different branches don't reliably lead to different conclusions then what is the point of moral reasoning? It just becomes an exercise in post hoc rationalization. (Not to say that this isn't precisely the exercise in which many people engage in the name of "morality.") Of course, many have criticized the Kohlberg's model, but not on those grounds. > > Incidentally, here is a recent article showing that torture is, in fact, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. > http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/09/why-founding-fathers-thought-banning-torture-foundational-us-constitution > > > Chris > ... > Christopher D Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > > chri...@yorku.ca > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > >> On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: >> >> I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things together really
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
Just one quick response to Chris's Q: I don't cover it in Intro or Social. I used to cover it in teaching Child and Life-span classes. Gary - Original Message - From: "Christopher Green" To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 12:55:51 PM Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages It appears to are correct, Rick. My recollection was that the different branches each led to a SINGLE answer. Not to BOTH answers. The same answers (yes or no) would ALTERNATE as ones went up the hierarchy of moral stances, but you wouldn't get BOTH answers on a single branch. I must confess that I am now a LONG way from serious debates of Kohlberg’s theory. I can’t recall it coming up in any discussion I have been involved in since probably the mid-1990s. Is it still taught in Intro and Social Psych? All that said, I think a more "ecologically valid" presentation of the kinds moral reasoning that Michael is looking for can be found in Roy Zimmerman’s song “Glory Bound Train,” a short snippet of which is here: https://bop.fm/s/roy-zimmerman/glory-bound-train-1 (Alas,the whole song does not seem to be on the internet.) :-) Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On Dec 19, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Rick Froman wrote: > I have never seen a representation of reasoning using Kohlberg's model > (including explanations of the classic Heinz scenario) that didn't describe a > justification at each level for opposite courses of action (steal the drug or > don't steal the drug). For example: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma. From the article: "From a > theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks > that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the > participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response." It > then goes on to demonstrate possible justifications for stealing or not > stealing the drug at every level. > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman > Professor of Psychology > Box 3519 > x7295 > rfro...@jbu.edu > http://bit.ly/DrFroman > > -Original Message- > From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:59 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages > > Michael, > > I think you undermine the usefulness of Kohlberg's model by appearing to show > that any conclusion can be reached by any path. If the different branches > don't reliably lead to different conclusions then what is the point of moral > reasoning? It just becomes an exercise in post hoc rationalization. (Not to > say that this isn't precisely the exercise in which many people engage in the > name of "morality.") Of course, many have criticized the Kohlberg's model, > but not on those grounds. > > Incidentally, here is a recent article showing that torture is, in fact, > prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. > http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/09/why-founding-fathers-thought-banning-torture-foundational-us-constitution > > > Chris > ... > Christopher D Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > > chri...@yorku.ca > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > >> On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: >> >> I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - >> both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral >> development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if >> there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and >> some rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is >> incomplete (a few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because >> I couldn't think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these >> two things together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. >> >> Happy to get input on this map: >> >> http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg >> >> Michael >> >> >> Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. >> mich...@thepsychfiles.com >> http://www.ThePsychFiles.com >> Twitter: @mbritt >> >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. >> To unsubscribe click here: >> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b >> d92&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 or send a blank email to >> leave-41175-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92@fsulist.frostburg. >> edu >> > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=41182 > or send a blank email to > leave-41182-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsuli
[tips] Why Brain Does Not Equal Mind
So because the brain is more complex & dynamic than a toaster it can't be "mind"? That could be the single weakest argument I've ever heard. Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania http://home.comcast.net/~epollak/ Husband, father, grandfather, bluegrass fiddler, banjoist & biopsychologist... in approximate order of importance Subject: Why Brain Does Not Equal Mind From: "Mike Palij" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:47:16 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 With all of the wack and rank neuroscience being promoted these days, it's easy for people to think that brain function is that same thing as cognitive function. One popular media article that points out some of the problems with this view is an Neurohacks article on the BBC website; see: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain Quoting from the article: |Part of the problem may be our way of thinking. It is natural |to see the brain as a piece of naturally selected technology, |and in human technology there is often a one-to-one mapping |between structure and function. If I have a toaster, the heat is |provided by the heating element, the time is controlled by the |timer and the popping up is driven by a spring. The case of the |missing cerebellum reveals there is no such simple scheme |for the brain. Although we love to talk about the brain region |for vision, for hunger or for love, there are no such brain regions, |because the brain isn't technology where any function is governed |by just one part. | |Take another recent case, that of a man who was found to have |a tapeworm in his brain. Over four years it burrowed "from one |side to the other", causing a variety of problems such as seizures, |memory problems and weird smell sensations. Sounds to me like |he got off lightly for having a living thing move through his brain. |If the brain worked like most designed technology this wouldn't |be possible. If a worm burrowed from one side of your phone to |the other, the gadget would die. Indeed, when an early electromechanical |computer malfunctioned in the 1940s, an investigation revealed |the problem: a moth trapped in a relay - the first actual case of |a computer bug being found. Well, so much for a Jennifer Aniston detector cell. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41191 or send a blank email to leave-41191-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
It appears to are correct, Rick. My recollection was that the different branches each led to a SINGLE answer. Not to BOTH answers. The same answers (yes or no) would ALTERNATE as ones went up the hierarchy of moral stances, but you wouldn't get BOTH answers on a single branch. I must confess that I am now a LONG way from serious debates of Kohlberg’s theory. I can’t recall it coming up in any discussion I have been involved in since probably the mid-1990s. Is it still taught in Intro and Social Psych? All that said, I think a more "ecologically valid" presentation of the kinds moral reasoning that Michael is looking for can be found in Roy Zimmerman’s song “Glory Bound Train,” a short snippet of which is here: https://bop.fm/s/roy-zimmerman/glory-bound-train-1 (Alas,the whole song does not seem to be on the internet.) :-) Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On Dec 19, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Rick Froman wrote: > I have never seen a representation of reasoning using Kohlberg's model > (including explanations of the classic Heinz scenario) that didn't describe a > justification at each level for opposite courses of action (steal the drug or > don't steal the drug). For example: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma. From the article: "From a > theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks > that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the > participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response." It > then goes on to demonstrate possible justifications for stealing or not > stealing the drug at every level. > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman > Professor of Psychology > Box 3519 > x7295 > rfro...@jbu.edu > http://bit.ly/DrFroman > > -Original Message- > From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:59 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages > > Michael, > > I think you undermine the usefulness of Kohlberg's model by appearing to show > that any conclusion can be reached by any path. If the different branches > don't reliably lead to different conclusions then what is the point of moral > reasoning? It just becomes an exercise in post hoc rationalization. (Not to > say that this isn't precisely the exercise in which many people engage in the > name of "morality.") Of course, many have criticized the Kohlberg's model, > but not on those grounds. > > Incidentally, here is a recent article showing that torture is, in fact, > prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. > http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/09/why-founding-fathers-thought-banning-torture-foundational-us-constitution > > > Chris > ... > Christopher D Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > > chri...@yorku.ca > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > >> On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: >> >> I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - >> both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral >> development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if >> there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and >> some rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is >> incomplete (a few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because >> I couldn't think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these >> two things together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. >> >> Happy to get input on this map: >> >> http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg >> >> Michael >> >> >> Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. >> mich...@thepsychfiles.com >> http://www.ThePsychFiles.com >> Twitter: @mbritt >> >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. >> To unsubscribe click here: >> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b >> d92&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 or send a blank email to >> leave-41175-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92@fsulist.frostburg. >> edu >> > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=41182 > or send a blank email to > leave-41182-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=41185 > or send a blank email to > leave-41185-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff3
Re: [tips] Can phobias be inherited?
I haven’t read this particular article, but it appears to be an oversimplification or overstatement. The content of a specific memory involves a specific environmental interaction. You can’t remember something that you haven’t experienced (false memory techniques are a way of providing that experience). It might be more accurate to say that epigenetic switching can provide predispositions for acquiring specific memories under the appropriate conditions. On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:50 AM, don allen wrote: > "Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches > that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according > to new research that may explain how phobias can develop" > > A link to the original article is included in the newspaper report. I don't > have sufficient knowledge of epigenetic research to evaluate this paper, but > on the surface it appears to be reasonably well crafted. If true, this may > change the way in which we view and treat phobias. > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html > > -Don. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: pkbra...@hickorytech.net. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=41186 > or send a blank email to > leave-41186-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41189 or send a blank email to leave-41189-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Can phobias be inherited?
Hi All: Have to confess that I'm finding this all a bit confusing, as I believe that this is the same Dias and Ressler article that was published online in Nature Neuroscience last December (a full year ago). Perhaps it's only now in print (?). If so, I’m not sure why news outlets are referring to it as news. In any case, reluctant as I am to post this message given that these authors are my colleagues (and I like and respect Kerry Ressler a whole lot), some of you may know that this study (I'm assuming it's the same one) has already been the target of quite a bit of criticism, as well as rejoinders by the original authors. See Neuroskeptic for a summary of the debate. The comments are also well worth reading. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/10/16/inherited-too-good-to-be-true/ Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor Department of Psychology, Room 473 36 Eagle Row Emory University Atlanta, Georgia 30322 slil...@emory.edu -Original Message- From: don allen [mailto:dap...@shaw.ca] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:51 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Can phobias be inherited? "Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according to new research that may explain how phobias can develop" A link to the original article is included in the newspaper report. I don't have sufficient knowledge of epigenetic research to evaluate this paper, but on the surface it appears to be reasonably well crafted. If true, this may change the way in which we view and treat phobias. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html -Don. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: slil...@emory.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=41186 or send a blank email to leave-41186-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41188 or send a blank email to leave-41188-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Can phobias be inherited?
"Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according to new research that may explain how phobias can develop" A link to the original article is included in the newspaper report. I don't have sufficient knowledge of epigenetic research to evaluate this paper, but on the surface it appears to be reasonably well crafted. If true, this may change the way in which we view and treat phobias. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html -Don. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41186 or send a blank email to leave-41186-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
I have never seen a representation of reasoning using Kohlberg's model (including explanations of the classic Heinz scenario) that didn't describe a justification at each level for opposite courses of action (steal the drug or don't steal the drug). For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma. From the article: "From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response." It then goes on to demonstrate possible justifications for stealing or not stealing the drug at every level. Rick Dr. Rick Froman Professor of Psychology Box 3519 x7295 rfro...@jbu.edu http://bit.ly/DrFroman -Original Message- From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:59 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages Michael, I think you undermine the usefulness of Kohlberg's model by appearing to show that any conclusion can be reached by any path. If the different branches don't reliably lead to different conclusions then what is the point of moral reasoning? It just becomes an exercise in post hoc rationalization. (Not to say that this isn't precisely the exercise in which many people engage in the name of "morality.") Of course, many have criticized the Kohlberg's model, but not on those grounds. Incidentally, here is a recent article showing that torture is, in fact, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/09/why-founding-fathers-thought-banning-torture-foundational-us-constitution Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo > On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: > > I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - > both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral > development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if > there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some > rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a > few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't > think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things > together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. > > Happy to get input on this map: > > http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg > > Michael > > > Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > http://www.ThePsychFiles.com > Twitter: @mbritt > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b > d92&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 or send a blank email to > leave-41175-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92@fsulist.frostburg. > edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=41182 or send a blank email to leave-41182-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41185 or send a blank email to leave-41185-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
Yes, your "man on the street" perspective is quite in line with Kohlberg's testing of an individual judging a person's actions in a hypothetical scenario (such as Heinz stealing a drug to save a life). I think the most interesting applications of the work, though, are to how we explain our own behavior, not the behavior of others. As others have said, there are many things that would go into making such a decision and performing such a behavior. Kohlberg's theory is really about how we explain it to ourselves. This rationale or justification may or may not have much to do with the actual motivating factors. As a person's cognitive capacities develop, they begin to reason differently about their ethical and moral choices. Some would see this as a development from a lower to a higher morality and maybe even a greater likelihood of performing moral actions. What your chart shows is that a person could make either choice at each level. It isn't really about the behavior chosen but about the way we explain it. This isn't to say that there aren't decisions that are more or less moral or that all of these arguments are equally valid, just that a person's cognitive level will determine the particular justification they give. By the way, this kind of chart is quite common in discussions of Kohlberg's work, including the Heinz dilemma. You can argue both ways for Heinz' actions at each level. It is a long-standing critique of Kohlberg's model to say that the person at the highest level of moral reasoning, who will follow their own conscience regardless of the law or any social contract, is hard to distinguish, by definition alone, from a sociopath. Kohlberg seems to believe that all right-thinking people will eventually arrive at the Universal Ethical Principle but there are certainly those who follow their conscience, break the law and are not lauded for it. Rick Dr. Rick Froman Professor of Psychology Box 3519 x7295 rfro...@jbu.edu http://bit.ly/DrFroman -Original Message- From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:54 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages Fascinating Rick. Thanks for taking the time to make these suggestions. The justifications you've written below come from the perspective of someone inside the CIA doing the actual torture, which is a different but equally interesting angle than I was thinking. I was thinking of just the "person on the street" and what they might think about whether the torture was right or wrong. How would this person justify the CIA's use of torture? Also, can you clarify what you mean by, "..the choice made to torture or not is not determined by Kohlberg's levels. The level describes the justification that will be made for the choice of torturing or not." Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt > On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Rick Froman wrote: > > You are definitely on the right track by demonstrating that the choice made > to torture or not is not determined by Kohlberg's levels. The level describes > the justification that will be made for the choice of torturing or not. I > think your emphasis on what other countries think of us will be, at most, a > minor consideration in these personal choices. More likely might be what your > immediate superior or your colleagues think of you (especially at a > pre-conventional level). The following are not perfect and are certainly not > the only possible responses at each level but I think they get at what the > justification would be like at each level. > > Instead of referencing the constitution on the top right (Level 1-1 Yes), I > would say "I will be punished by my superiors if we don't get results". > > Level 1-1 No would say, "If anyone finds out that I did this, I will get it > trouble, so I will not torture this person." > > > Level 1-2 Yes would be "if I can torture this person to receive actionable > intelligence, I will be a hero and be rewarded by my superiors." > > Level 1-2 No would be "if I don't torture this person, I will be rewarded for > it". > > > Level 2-1 Yes would be justified in the context of interpersonal > relationships such as "my colleagues and superiors will think well of me if I > go along with this" and "this will keep more of my fellow citizens and > soldiers from dying" > > Level 2-1 No would have to be in the context of interpersonal relationships > such as "what might my friends and family think of me if they knew I was > doing this?" > > > Level 2-2 Yes "We are using these techniques to maintain the social order and > bring justice to the victims of terrorism and these techniques have been > approved by legal authorities." > > Level 2-2 No (I think the current example given here goes down in the next > level) "We shouldn't torture becau
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
Michael, I think you undermine the usefulness of Kohlberg's model by appearing to show that any conclusion can be reached by any path. If the different branches don't reliably lead to different conclusions then what is the point of moral reasoning? It just becomes an exercise in post hoc rationalization. (Not to say that this isn't precisely the exercise in which many people engage in the name of "morality.") Of course, many have criticized the Kohlberg's model, but not on those grounds. Incidentally, here is a recent article showing that torture is, in fact, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/09/why-founding-fathers-thought-banning-torture-foundational-us-constitution Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo > On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: > > I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - > both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral > development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if > there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some > rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a > few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't > think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things > together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. > > Happy to get input on this map: > > http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg > > Michael > > > Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > http://www.ThePsychFiles.com > Twitter: @mbritt > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 > or send a blank email to > leave-41175-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41182 or send a blank email to leave-41182-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
Fascinating Rick. Thanks for taking the time to make these suggestions. The justifications you've written below come from the perspective of someone inside the CIA doing the actual torture, which is a different but equally interesting angle than I was thinking. I was thinking of just the "person on the street" and what they might think about whether the torture was right or wrong. How would this person justify the CIA's use of torture? Also, can you clarify what you mean by, "..the choice made to torture or not is not determined by Kohlberg's levels. The level describes the justification that will be made for the choice of torturing or not." Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt > On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Rick Froman wrote: > > You are definitely on the right track by demonstrating that the choice made > to torture or not is not determined by Kohlberg's levels. The level describes > the justification that will be made for the choice of torturing or not. I > think your emphasis on what other countries think of us will be, at most, a > minor consideration in these personal choices. More likely might be what your > immediate superior or your colleagues think of you (especially at a > pre-conventional level). The following are not perfect and are certainly not > the only possible responses at each level but I think they get at what the > justification would be like at each level. > > Instead of referencing the constitution on the top right (Level 1-1 Yes), I > would say "I will be punished by my superiors if we don't get results". > > Level 1-1 No would say, "If anyone finds out that I did this, I will get it > trouble, so I will not torture this person." > > > Level 1-2 Yes would be "if I can torture this person to receive actionable > intelligence, I will be a hero and be rewarded by my superiors." > > Level 1-2 No would be "if I don't torture this person, I will be rewarded for > it". > > > Level 2-1 Yes would be justified in the context of interpersonal > relationships such as "my colleagues and superiors will think well of me if I > go along with this" and "this will keep more of my fellow citizens and > soldiers from dying" > > Level 2-1 No would have to be in the context of interpersonal relationships > such as "what might my friends and family think of me if they knew I was > doing this?" > > > Level 2-2 Yes "We are using these techniques to maintain the social order and > bring justice to the victims of terrorism and these techniques have been > approved by legal authorities." > > Level 2-2 No (I think the current example given here goes down in the next > level) "We shouldn't torture because it is unlawful (hasn't been fully > adjudicated in the US and may violate international law) and will lead to a > breakdown of law and order where we will sink to the level of the terrorists." > > > Level 3-1 Yes "the relevant social contract is with my fellow citizens who > have been attacked by terrorists and we are doing this to bring the > terrorists to justice (not necessarily in the justice system)." > > Level 3-1 "No the social contract across cultures and national boundaries is > that torture is forbidden." > > > Level 3-2 "Yes I am at peace with the fact that torture is a necessary evil > to prevent greater evils from occurring and I would do this whether it was > against the law or not." > > Level 3-2 No "Torture is wrong and I would not torture whether it is against > the law or not." > > > Rick > > > Dr. Rick Froman > Professor of Psychology > Box 3519 > x7295 > rfro...@jbu.edu > http://bit.ly/DrFroman > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:55 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages > > I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - > both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral > development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if > there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some > rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a > few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't > think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things > together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. > > Happy to get input on this map: > > http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg > > Michael > > > Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > http://www.ThePsychFiles.com > Twitter: @mbritt > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 > or send a blank email to > leave-41175-13039.37a56d4
RE: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
You are definitely on the right track by demonstrating that the choice made to torture or not is not determined by Kohlberg's levels. The level describes the justification that will be made for the choice of torturing or not. I think your emphasis on what other countries think of us will be, at most, a minor consideration in these personal choices. More likely might be what your immediate superior or your colleagues think of you (especially at a pre-conventional level). The following are not perfect and are certainly not the only possible responses at each level but I think they get at what the justification would be like at each level. Instead of referencing the constitution on the top right (Level 1-1 Yes), I would say "I will be punished by my superiors if we don't get results". Level 1-1 No would say, "If anyone finds out that I did this, I will get it trouble, so I will not torture this person." Level 1-2 Yes would be "if I can torture this person to receive actionable intelligence, I will be a hero and be rewarded by my superiors." Level 1-2 No would be "if I don't torture this person, I will be rewarded for it". Level 2-1 Yes would be justified in the context of interpersonal relationships such as "my colleagues and superiors will think well of me if I go along with this" and "this will keep more of my fellow citizens and soldiers from dying" Level 2-1 No would have to be in the context of interpersonal relationships such as "what might my friends and family think of me if they knew I was doing this?" Level 2-2 Yes "We are using these techniques to maintain the social order and bring justice to the victims of terrorism and these techniques have been approved by legal authorities." Level 2-2 No (I think the current example given here goes down in the next level) "We shouldn't torture because it is unlawful (hasn't been fully adjudicated in the US and may violate international law) and will lead to a breakdown of law and order where we will sink to the level of the terrorists." Level 3-1 Yes "the relevant social contract is with my fellow citizens who have been attacked by terrorists and we are doing this to bring the terrorists to justice (not necessarily in the justice system)." Level 3-1 "No the social contract across cultures and national boundaries is that torture is forbidden." Level 3-2 "Yes I am at peace with the fact that torture is a necessary evil to prevent greater evils from occurring and I would do this whether it was against the law or not." Level 3-2 No "Torture is wrong and I would not torture whether it is against the law or not." Rick Dr. Rick Froman Professor of Psychology Box 3519 x7295 rfro...@jbu.edu http://bit.ly/DrFroman -Original Message- From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:55 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. Happy to get input on this map: http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 or send a blank email to leave-41175-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41180 or send a blank email to leave-41180-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
Understood. My thought however, was not that Kohlberg's model would be applied to the CIA as an organization, but rather to what individuals say to themselves and to others about why torture in this situation was either justified or not. Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt > On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Paul Brandon wrote: > > First of all — CIA and ‘moral’ in the same sentence without a negative? > More seriously, can a hypothesis developed to apply to individuals be applied > to organizations? > I’m not sure that we’re talking about individual decisions here. > > On Dec 19, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: > >> I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - >> both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral >> development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if >> there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and >> some rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is >> incomplete (a few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because >> I couldn't think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these >> two things together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. >> >> Happy to get input on this map: >> >> http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg >> >> Michael > > Paul Brandon > Emeritus Professor of Psychology > Minnesota State University, Mankato > pkbra...@hickorytech.net > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69&n=T&l=tips&o=41176 > or send a blank email to > leave-41176-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41179 or send a blank email to leave-41179-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Brain Does not Equal Mind
By analogy: brain function is hardware. cognitive function is software. The fact that one is mediated by the other does not make them the same entity. On Dec 18, 2014, at 11:57 PM, Mike Wiliams wrote: > If cognitive function is not mediated by the brain, then what is it? > > Mike Williams > > On 12/18/14 11:00 PM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest > wrote: >> With all of the wack and rank neuroscience being promoted >> these days, it's easy for people to think that brain function is >> that same thing as cognitive function. One popular media >> article that points out some of the problems with this view is >> an Neurohacks article on the BBC website; see: >> >> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41177 or send a blank email to leave-41177-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
First of all — CIA and ‘moral’ in the same sentence without a negative? More seriously, can a hypothesis developed to apply to individuals be applied to organizations? I’m not sure that we’re talking about individual decisions here. On Dec 19, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Michael Britt wrote: > I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - > both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral > development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if > there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some > rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a > few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't > think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things > together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. > > Happy to get input on this map: > > http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg > > Michael Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41176 or send a blank email to leave-41176-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] CIA Torture and Kohlberg's Stages
I've been thinking about how people's various reactions to the CIA torture - both pro and con - might be applied to Kohlberg's levels of moral development. It might make for a good class discussion next semester if there's a way to make this work. I put together a map of the stages and some rationales that I've heard for the CIA torture, but the map is incomplete (a few of the nodes don't have opinions/rationalizations because I couldn't think of one). Also, I'm wondering whether trying to fit these two things together really works, but I thought it was worth a try. Happy to get input on this map: http://bitly.com/TortureAndKohlberg Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41175 or send a blank email to leave-41175-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Why Brain Does not Equal Mind
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 21:58:17 -0800, Mike Wiliams write: If cognitive function is not mediated by the brain, then what is it? I think you're a little confused and/or I don't understand what you are saying. Consider the following: Assume that the mind can be represented by a system of computations that ranges from how to process information from the environment that is detected by sensors to creating internal representations of external objects/situations that can be manipulated and transformed, to the application and development of new transformations (e.g., acquiring reasoning skills, inference schemas, etc.) to the development and execution of action plans that produce motor behavior. One question that arises is whether it is better (1) to have all aspects of this system's functionality hardwired, in this case, embodied in form of individual neurons, neural networks, and systems of neural networks, or (2) to have all aspects of this system's functionality as software, in this case, general purpose neurons that are highly adaptable (e.g., stem cells), that can form general purpose neural networks that can be specialized to handle specific forms of information (e.g., representations of visual information or auditory info or etc.), and systems of such neural networks. In (1) cognitive activity is synonymous with brain activity because the cognitive function is hardwired, that is, the neuron, neural network, system of neural networks only do specific operations and no other. In (2) cognitive activity is correlated with brain activity but, if that specific brain area is damaged, the cognitive activity may be transferable to other brain areas. That is, the hardware and the software are not synonymous. The question for psychologists is which of the two situations above hold for human cognition and why? Is it possible that some aspects of human cognition are hardwired (e.g., depth perception) while others are purely learned (e.g., rules for playing games). The simplest analogy to the above situation is the creation of a personal computer where, say, the Windows operating system is hardwired into it (no other operating system can run on the machine; Windows could create a "virtual machine" that will run another operating system in the "box" containing the virtual machine though at some cost because the simulation has a laver of processing between the virtual machine and the actual hardware it is interacting with. Is the brain and mind like this? The other way of doing things is to use a common hardware system that supports many different operating systems. Macs and PCs both now use Intel chips which means that both can directly access and execute at the hardware level, so one can choose one or the other (when Macs used Motorola chips, other operating systems would have to be run in a virtual machine). One still has the option of running one operating system (Mac OS X) and then creating a virtual machine running Windows in order to use programs that only are available on Windows).See the following popular media article on how these things are implemented on current Macs; see: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2344661,00.asp So, what is the brain-mind relationship? (a) Mind is hardwired into neural structures (b) Mind is supported by existing neural structures even when those structure are damaged or destroyed (c) Mind is some hybrid of the situations in (a) and (b) (d) Mind is an expression of the Soul and it can be any damned thing God wants it to be. ;-) Just sayin'. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu On 12/18/14 11:00 PM, Mike Palij wrote: With all of the wack and rank neuroscience being promoted these days, it's easy for people to think that brain function is that same thing as cognitive function. One popular media article that points out some of the problems with this view is an Neurohacks article on the BBC website; see: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41172 or send a blank email to leave-41172-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
