On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> Neuro-biological research since the 80s seems to show that the key
> parts of
> the processes of what people call 'thinking' and reflecting about
> 'thinking', are handled below what is available to self perception
> - it
> simply doesn't happen in terms of the neurological 'images' that
> occur in
> 'thinking', or the perceptions of feelings. \
Terry: I totally disagree. Where is your evidence? Why are you
stressing self perception when the perception and interpretation of
phenomena is the issue? The neurological images that occur in thinking
do in fact occur in thinking, just as I perceive what I feel as I
write this.
>
> Looked at another way, the bit we can see inside ourselves that we
> call
> 'thinking' is not the decision making process not is it the self (or
> sense
> of self), or the emotions themselves. It is a superficial simplistic
> opportunistically defined pseudo-story to ourselves. The decisions and
> awareness that it is core to us as 'individuals that are making
> decisions
> and doing things' happens elsewhere in our bodies and both predates
> our
> thinking on a moment by moment basis and is different from it. In
> other
> words, our bodies make decisions and do things and our thinking
> provides a
> pseudo-illusion that it is the thinking that is initiating things.
>
To be sure our bodies anticipate some of our thoughts (and emotional
reactions) but do not control how we apply our knowledge to
situations we experience. That depends on the memories we use to
interpret our experiences as evidenced by the slight delay between
physiological stimulation and the engagement of the frontal cortex.
> For example, if I dig back to the point at which I decided to write
> this
> sentence, there is a point where it just came into mind. But before
> that
> happened, many body processes had already 'made' the decisions about
> writing
> the sentence and what was going to be in it.
Do you include subconscious mental processes in your concept of body
processes?
> The thought in mind is just the
> superficial froth or, in its other role, a self interested lobbying
> mechanism for shaping those underlying bodily decision making
> processes.
> Either way, inspecting my thinking tells me little about why or how I
> decided or did things - even though it gives me the illusion that it
> does!
> All of this ties in with neuro-science findings and also with the
> literatures on self deception and illusion in reflection and memory
> of self.
Being aware of your body's decisions may save your life. More to the
point, reflective thought may prevent saying things that are
irrelevant or meaningless to others. That is why primary physiological
responses are tempered by reason. I'd be surprised if you did not
reflect on what you say or do.
>
>
> This then poses a bit of a serious dilemma in education for those
> proposing
> self awareness and reflection as a path to improvement of 'creative'
> activity.. The mechanics of the dilemma are to do with the problems of
> reinforcement, falsehood and illusion in these 'creative' processes.
Perhaps I miss your point. Critical thinking is both self aware and
reflective. It is not necessarily creative.
>
> On one hand, it seems useful for us (and by implications useful to
> educate
> students) to be aware of our thinking styles and biases, in spite of
> these
> being superficial and not really connected to our decision-making
> processes.
> (There's lots of literature going down this line and most of us
> academics
> have been pretty well indoctrinated on it)
Not me! Thinking styles are important handles with which to reach
individual students. These are not superficial or unconnected to
decision making processes as you suggest. There is much evidence
against your view.
>
> On the other hand, it is clearly unhelpful to reinforce a falsehood
> and to
> encourage students to believe that their conscious thinking is a
> reliable
> representation of their interaction with the world and that it is
> their
> 'self'. To do so discourages students form exploring more deeply
> about the
> bodily reality of creative actions rather than thinking it is dues
> to their
> 'thinking'.
Students interpret the world they experience through their thoughts
about their experience as well as the responses of their body. Some of
this is sub conscious based on prior experience and some of it is
constructed. But the sense of self is a cumulative construct and is
only manifested through situated thought. the mind has content that
the body doesn't.
>
> If we are not careful, as educators we will continue to propagate an
> erroneous meme that has deep and potentially adverse implications
> for the
> foundations of research and practice about how we educate
> individuals to
> create a better world.
What meme are you talking about? Please define this if you make such
extreme judgments?
>
> An underlying problems is that most of us educators have been
> indoctrinated
> with the illusion that 'our thought is """ourself"""' and that 'our
> thinking
> is our decisionmaking process'. This means it can feel deeply
> uncomfortable
> to suggest that thinking and reflection on thinking is false and
> unhelpful.
We have both autobiographical and intellectual selfs. They manifest
our histories and preferences and shape how we think. Failure to
promote self analytical thought is a failure to educate students in
how their minds have developed and can be used.
> Is this best seen as an either-or (reflection on thinking or not),
> or a
> sequence of learning ( no reflection -> reflection -> going beyond the
> illusion that thought is self...)? Which is better for educating
> design
> students? Which is best as a basis for future design research into
> improving
> how people create designs?
We need to understand how thought occurs and is directed to meet the
needs and desires of ourselves and others. We also need to teach our
students what we know or don't know.
Best wishes,
Chuck
|