Graduate studies at Western
Mind and Matter 6 (2):207-234 (2008)
|Abstract||We humans and other animals continuously construct and main- tain our grasp of the world by using astonishingly small snippets of sensory information. Recent studies in nonlinear brain dynamics have shown how this occurs: brains imagine possible futures and seek and use sensory stimulation to select among them as guides for chosen actions. On the one hand the scientific explanation of the dynamics is inaccessible to most of us. On the other hand the philosophical foundation from which the sciences grew is accessible through the work of one of its originators, Thomas Aquinas. The core concept of intention in Aquinas is the inviolable unity of mind, brain and body. All that we know we have constructed within ourselves from the unintelligible fragments of energy impacting our senses as we move our bodies through the world. This process of intention is transi- tive in the outward thrust of the body in search of desired future states; it is intransitive in the dynamic construction of predictions of the states in the sensory cortices by which we recognize suc- cess or failure in achievement. The process is phenomenologically experienced in the action-perception cycle. Enactment is through the serial creation of neurodynamic activity patterns in brains, by which the self of mind-brain-body comes to know the world first by shaping the self to an approximation of the sought-for input, and then by assimilating those shapes into knowledge and meaning. This conception of the self as closed, autonomous, and self- organizing, devised over 700 years ago and shelved by Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza 300 years ago, is now re-emerging in philos- ophy and re-establishes the meaning of intention in its original sense. The core Aquinian concept of the unity of brain, body and soul/mind, which had been abandoned by mechanists and replaced by Brentano and Husserl using the duality inherent in representa- tionalism, has been revived by Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, but in phenomenological terms that are opaque to neurscientists. In my experience there is no extant philosophical system than that of Aquinas that better fits with the new _ndings in nonlinear brain dynamics. Therefore, a detailed reading and transcription of basic terms is warranted, comparing in both directions the significance of key words across 700 years from medieval metaphysics to 21st century brain dynamics.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael A. Arbib & Peter Érdi (2000). Organizing the Brain's Diversities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):551-565.
Harry Francis Mallgrave (2010). The Architect's Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture. Wiley-Blackwell.
Márk Molnár (2001). Low-Dimensional Versus High-Dimensional Chaos in Brain Function – is It an and/or Issue? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):823-824.
Robert A. M. Gregson (1997). Nonlinear Computation and Dynamic Cognitive Generalities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):688-689.
Helena Knyazeva (2009). Nonlinear Cobweb of Cognition. Foundations of Science 14 (3):167-179.
Walter J. Freeman & Robert Kozma (2000). Local-Global Interactions and the Role of Mesoscopic (Intermediate-Range) Elements in Brain Dynamics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):401-401.
Walter J. Freeman (2001). The Behavior-Cognition Link is Well Done; the Cognition-Brain Link Needs More Work. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):42-43.
Robert A. M. Gregson (2000). Chaotic Dynamics and Psychophysical Parallelism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):541-542.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads72 ( #14,396 of 740,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?