Hi Chuck,

Thanks for your reply. You make me think!
I'll answer in text following your example. 
We seem to disagree on lots of stuff - perhaps not?

Chuck wrote: 
>The neurological images that occur in thinking  
>do in fact occur in thinking, just as I perceive what I feel as I  
>write this.

Terry:
Nope. A tiny proportion  of the neurological images are available to
thinking and perceiving processes. Mostly your body runs itself and decides
what you will do, think, perceive and feel without you knowing anything at
all about it.

Chuck wrote:
>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.

Terry:
Nope. The idea that we 'control how we apply our knowledge to situations we
experience' is a convenient illusion that we are strongly internally
motivated to agree with (otherwise we feel bad). The explanation might be in
a problem of dissociation. If there is any serious justification for saying
that the 'person' exists (i.e. the ephemera calling itself Terry, Chuck or
Keith) at most it has a minor influence on most of what the body itself
decides. It's primary use is in dealing with complexity and time-spacing
(neither of which we do particularly well without theory techniques - which
the brain and thinking manage well). The interpretation process is solely
for this minor thinky bit of the body functioning. 

Chuck wrote:
>Do you include subconscious mental processes in your concept of body  
>processes?

Terry:
All 'mental' processes are actualized as body processes. The key issue is
whether you see human action and decision making as a whole of body process
of which 'thinking' is a tiny part, or whether one insists as an ego that
who we are, what we do, act and decide is determined by what we perceive
internally as thoughts. 

Chuck wrote:
>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.

Terry:
I agree. Those seem to be useful purposes of the thinking/reflecting
processes that enable us to check out gross responses to situations safely
in an internal representation 'as if' the situation was real. The mind is a
useful tool - only that.
The problem is if the mind is taken to be the whole of a person or the
decisionmaker.

Chuck wrote:
>Perhaps I miss your point.  Critical thinking is both self aware and  
>reflective. It is not necessarily creative.

Terry:
I was suggesting that it is often assumed that creative activity  as in
design activity requires one to be self-aware and reflective.


Chuck wrote:
>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.

Terry:
Decisionmaking and action is driven primarily by body processes and only
slightly by the mind. Thinking styles seem  pretty irrelevant to body-based
decision making and action creating activities. If you focus only on the
small amount of decisionmaking that is shaped by 'thinking' then thinking
styles are important to that. Something that may be possible is that
thinking stykes are echoes of deeper differences in body functioning.

Chuck wrote:
 >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.

Terry:
That is a 'thinking' based view.
'Sense of self' is a primitive' and doesn't require construction. What gets
constructed from experience (conditioning and indoctrination) is
persona/personality

Chuck wrote:
>What meme are you talking about? Please define this if you make such  
>extreme judgments?

Terry:
That creative activity or 'creativity' is best seen through the lens of ego
and 'thinking'.

Chuck wrote:
>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.

Terry:
I agree. The problem is that it  leads to an education that focuses only on
'thinking' and improving 'minds'. More is possible and possibly essential.

Chuck wrote:
>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.

Terry:
I agree that 'we need to understand how thought occurs and is directed to
meet the needs and desires of ourselves and others'. My comments are that it
is important to put that in its place, rather than reifying thought,
perception and feeling as if they were the primary drivers of decisionmaking
and action.

Warm regards and many thanks,

Terry