Response to extended mind query
(So I'm posting the response to Academic Front Part I here, because I tried to comment in the appropriate location, but it never appeared. Am I really that dumb...?)
The reason cases of alzhiemer’s and amenesia cases are so often cited is because they are dramatic cases that easily illustrate the notion of the extended mind. If their “extended self” is lost or damaged, a greater part of their ‘self’ (whatever that is) will be lost because to a much greater extent than healthy minds, they rely on external cog-tools.
But you don’t need to have a damaged mind to extend cognitive processes into the environment. You are right to point out that technologies like digital cameras and computers confer a very selective and malleable notion of the mind, and because of that fact, it could be argued that these technologies aren’t like the mind at all. On the other hand, our biological minds are just as open to sabotage (by self or others), suggestion, or selective memory. For instance, if I’m at a pub eyeing some hottie, I may think that they are returning the flirtatious looks but only because I want them to be; however, in reality nothing of the sort is going on. I see what I want to see. Another major fallibility of the bio-mind is that its attentional focus and perception can be very limited. An awesome (and entertaining) experiment has the subjects watch a game of scratch basketball and count the number of passes made. During the game a person in a gorilla suit walks through the game and does a little dance—half the subjects don’t report seeing the gorilla! However, surely if you saw a still photo of the basketball game, you’d pick right up on the gorilla in the midst (ba dum CHING!).
I recently went to a cool talk given by Mike Wheeler, in which he said (bio) memory isn’t post-perceptual recall but post-perceptual reconstruction; memory is a constructive process. I like that idea. On that line of thinking, a photo or a mental picture or a smell or any stimulus—internal or external—can trigger the reconstruction of a memory. It’s really just a question of whether we use our perceptual modalities (like sight, hearing, touch, etc.) that connect us with the outside world or whether we use internal (mentalistic) strategies to conjure up in image or thought.
Thanks for your comments, Friend.
Gorilla video (although I’ve spoiled the fun for you readers, you can try it out on friends):
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html
Other fun perception videos:
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html
The reason cases of alzhiemer’s and amenesia cases are so often cited is because they are dramatic cases that easily illustrate the notion of the extended mind. If their “extended self” is lost or damaged, a greater part of their ‘self’ (whatever that is) will be lost because to a much greater extent than healthy minds, they rely on external cog-tools.
But you don’t need to have a damaged mind to extend cognitive processes into the environment. You are right to point out that technologies like digital cameras and computers confer a very selective and malleable notion of the mind, and because of that fact, it could be argued that these technologies aren’t like the mind at all. On the other hand, our biological minds are just as open to sabotage (by self or others), suggestion, or selective memory. For instance, if I’m at a pub eyeing some hottie, I may think that they are returning the flirtatious looks but only because I want them to be; however, in reality nothing of the sort is going on. I see what I want to see. Another major fallibility of the bio-mind is that its attentional focus and perception can be very limited. An awesome (and entertaining) experiment has the subjects watch a game of scratch basketball and count the number of passes made. During the game a person in a gorilla suit walks through the game and does a little dance—half the subjects don’t report seeing the gorilla! However, surely if you saw a still photo of the basketball game, you’d pick right up on the gorilla in the midst (ba dum CHING!).
I recently went to a cool talk given by Mike Wheeler, in which he said (bio) memory isn’t post-perceptual recall but post-perceptual reconstruction; memory is a constructive process. I like that idea. On that line of thinking, a photo or a mental picture or a smell or any stimulus—internal or external—can trigger the reconstruction of a memory. It’s really just a question of whether we use our perceptual modalities (like sight, hearing, touch, etc.) that connect us with the outside world or whether we use internal (mentalistic) strategies to conjure up in image or thought.
Thanks for your comments, Friend.
Gorilla video (although I’ve spoiled the fun for you readers, you can try it out on friends):
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html
Other fun perception videos:
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html
posted by Amity at 1:22 PM
5 Comments:
Ok, so the response is in the right place now. Looks like I'm more impatient than dumb...
I think in the film 'Lost Highway' the Bill Pullman character says, "I like to remember things my own way." You could argue that the whole movie was about memory reconstruction, I reckon.
I'm fascinated by the way in which people recollect events. I think it boils down to a balancing act of ego and empathy and a kind of pschologically self preserving ju-jitsu. I don't suppose anyone really sees what actually happens around them. It's far too complex and, in the end, not terribly useful. What works to preserve one's own version of truth is knitted into our own personal mythos; anything in conflict is shucked out. This can be a very destructive thing too, and the cause of a great deal of personal and historical strife. Perhaps most of it.
Anyway, interesting stuff. Keep it up there, friend.
"pschologically self preserving ju-jitsu"...I like that.
I've got a lot to learn about current thinking on conciousness. I just stumbled on and finished a book called 'Mindscan' by Robert J. Sawyer. It was based on his short story 'Shed Skin' (http://www.sfwriter.com/shedskin.htm)
Funny how a quick trip to Flickr sends you off on unexpected trips. . .
I, too, have a great deal to learn about consciousness!! This link was posted in a recent blog, and its resources are quite helpful:
http://consc.net/online.html
My friend is working on explaining consciousness and swears by Daniel Dennett. I hear his book Consciousness Explained is quite accessible and entertaining to read.
Yes, flickr has a tendency to send me off on mad divagations from photos to blogs to photos again. (Repeat cycle). It is quite detrimental to my studies! But its good to see people are ending up here AND commenting! Thanks, Mike!
Post a Comment
<< Home