"...it might be worth sharpening your
> tools. "Logic" is not a synonym for "mental processes", and is rather
> misleading."
Dear Alison, I agree that I must sharpen my tools, but then again it has
only been two months since I began looking into language theory. I came into
it via my studies in sensation and after reading Wittgenstein and Avrum
Stroll's "Analytic Philosophy" (not the exact title). I wouldn't say that
"logic" and "mental processes" are synonymous because i think in their
definitions they are on different levels. I would say mental processes are
guided by logical principles. For example, mental processes such as
thinking, remembering, imagining, have one thing in common, a fundamental
logical structure. This may seem idealistic and to be sure we do a lot of
seemingly superfluous thinking but here i would like to stress the
difference between the "content" of our thoughts and the "structure" of our
thinking. The reason that I don't think it's a form of reductionism is
because I don't believe the "logical principles" that guide thinking are
actually immanent in our thinking processes. It's as if we can make a
schemata of our thinking as we would make a schemata of the growth of a
tree. We can map the whole process of a tree's life and in this way "show"
the "logic" that guides a tree's growth. This map or scheme reveals a
certain logic that all trees share, a fundamental pattern, so to speak. Now
surely no two trees are alike, however they all share this fundamental
scheme, this fundamental logical map of their growth. But this "logic" is
not immanent in each tree, but nonetheless is manifested by the fact that we
can make a basic scheme that all trees share. This is what i am driving at.
It is not well-developed but i hope you can see what i mean. This is why I
think that Wittgenstein's comment "Logic is transcendent" is particularly
applicable to this idea.
and i have browsed through the book you suggested and it seemed similar to
all the other cognitive science takes on the mind and so i didn't buy it,
but if you say its different maybe ill take a second look.
sincerely,
d
>
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:12:15 +1100, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
> >what i have been saying all along is that maybe we have defined "logic"
to
> >narrowly.
>
> Daniel, I don't want to get into a quarrel about semantics. But since
> language, consciousness and anything to do with the human mind and brain
> are to say the least complex matters, it might be worth sharpening your
> tools. "Logic" is not a synonym for "mental processes", and is rather
> misleading.
>
> >About neurology i am definitely against current theories of cognitive
> >science and all forms of reductionism of mental states into brain
activity
> >so I really doubt i would get much out of reading neurology.
>
> I too am deeply disturbed by all kinds of biological determinism and
> reductionism. The description of all kinds of mental activity as "logic"
> strikes me as reductionism, which is why I don't like it.
>
> I have recently read a very interesting book by the neurologist Antonio
> Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens, which is neither of these things,
> and which I highly recommend. Quite obviously, if you don't read it, you
> won't find out what he's saying. As for the rest - there is plenty of
> research on childhood development, starting with the excellent Piaget,
> which might help; or you could always study a real child.
>
> Best
>
> A
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
|