--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote: > Let me describe an incident from around 15 years ago. I was one of the > two examiners of a masters degree student. The particular student was > blind from birth, so we gave him an oral exam in place of the usual > written comprehensive exam. I'll cut the paragraph on the particulars but add, a most interesting example > > What was very noticeable during the exam, and actually quite > disconcerting, was that when he was thinking about a question, his eyes > were jumping around. I guess that's the kind of rapid eye movement in > REM sleep, but he was not asleep. It was clear that this eye movement > was part of his thinking. EMDR, a method for prompting eye movement, apparerntly diminishes ones stress reaction to trama. > > If you want to say that thinking involves the representation of ideas, > then it seems to me that this blind student was representing ideas in > patterns of eye movements.?" I'd agree but add that "representation" need not mean depicting, picturing, but, somehow constituting, facilitating. > > Personally, I would say that "thinking is behavior" is a better > description than "thinking is computation." I agree but to play devil's advocate I'll ask: If thinking requires brain activity, and brain activity can be simulated on a computer, then why isn't "thinking like computation?" > The neural system manages the behavior, but the thinking itself is properly ascribed, as behavior, to > the person. I don't mean to be difficult but now it seems as if we have two agents. One, the neural system, managing behavior and the other, the person, thinking. Or is the person part of the neural system? If so, then thinking could be attributed to it. bruce WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009