Neuropsychology Central

[jacks250]

I don't see the necessity of neuropsychology in cognitive psychology..........it is a study of the mind not the brain! Can someone please explain to me if I'm wrong???

[lash]

Well, obviously you knew you would get a response saying you were wrong, since cognitive neuropsychology is a huge field. But, just for the sake of understanding, which field are you claiming is a study of the mind and not the brain?

[sociologist]

I think this is probably a late entry, but... I am a sociologist, and I really think that it's quite often to understand exactly the opposite: how do we need a study of the "mind", as if it were a strange domain between the biological body and the world.

[DrmDoc]

If I may join with another late entry, the mind is a product of brain function; it is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function. Whatever ideas or theories we form about the nature of the mind are rendered valid or invalid by the nature of brain function. For example, what defines a mind? Well, from a perspective of brain function, a mind is quantified by a brain's capacity to integrate sensory information--from multiple sources of sensory input (visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile)--in a way that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Given this perspective, proactive rather than reactive behaviors identify those species capable of the abstract and anticipatory thought processes that quantify a mind. This bit of information, which brain study provides, suggests that the human species is not alone in producing a mind. From a perspective of evolution, the brain began producing a rudimentary mind at the thalamic stage of development, perhaps 360-400 million years ago. Essentially, studying the nature of brain function and its evolution quantifies our perspective of the mind.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc

[Helix]

Well, talking about late entries...

DrmDoc's post sounds to me as if it were by any means possible to quantify a brain's capacity to integrate information, which it isn't. What's more, I don't think we know very much about how the brain "integrates" stimuli. Sure, corollary discharge, LTP + adding some vague termes like working memory.... borrowed from.... cognitive psychology? This is just me saying that I don't agree with what seems to me a rather positivistic viewpoint: that we can fully understand mind by reducing it to brain processes, regardless of whether the brain produces mind, is necessary for mind to occur or is synonymuous for mind. For the simple reason that our mind or our brain - make a choice or not - doesn't seem to be constructed as to adopt such a mechanichal view of the workd. So, let's embrace some theoretical pluralism instead of reducing the world so it fits into one's own pockets.

[DrmDoc]

Pardon this late reply to your comments regarding my thoughts on the nature of the mind, which I've only just now noticed. I think anyone who has studied brain evolution as I have understands fully that the mind is a creation of brain function. A mind, empirically, cannot exist or function without the neurological structure evolved to support its processes. We know this as an empirical truth because of the copious amount of data brain research has provided. If we accept the evidence brain study appears to provide, then it is indeed possible to quantify the mind by that evidence.

Do we engage science to maintain the mystery of our nature or to demystify that nature? Although one may desire to remain in the Eden of "theoretical pluralism," eventully I think one must take a step beyond the fanciful onto firmer ground. On firmer ground is the perspective that our brain routinely integrates tactile, aural, visual, oral, and olfactory sensory data to produce the thoughts, emotions, and behavioral responses we engage as a function of our corporeal existence. The types of responses we engage (proactive or reactive) and the parts of the brain that mediate these responses suggest volumes about the nature of our mind. To deny evidence that points to a truth because one desires to cling to one's belief in the grandiosity of a thing is contrary to science, logic, and sound reasoning--in my opinion.
_________________
All statements herein are products of my private investigation and assessment of the available evidence. I assume that all who read my statements will pursue further research to determine their validity. --DrmDoc

[Helix]

Thank you very much for your reply. It's not that I neglect the findings of neuroscience nor do I deny that our brain is the matter where mind is located. Yet, the part I want to object is that we would know very much about how this happens. For me, it is far to early to be that enthousiastic about ourselves. We lack an overarching framework that integrates all the little pieces researchers have collected. We don't have an answer to fundamental processes for conscious experience to occur, i.e. the binding problem. The rate of false positive and unreplicated findings is huge (take e.g. a look at the lit on the genetics of schizophrenia, where lots of money has been invested in the best of the best).

Actually, I don't agree that the goals of science is to demystify nature and if it was, we would be doing quite bad. If anything, the history of science has taught us that everything is just temporary "evidence", that had wrong premisses in the first place and will be replaced by some new paradigm in the nearby future. What's more, I don't think that there is a Garden Eden of theoretical pluralism. In fact, accepting (as a scientist) that science is all about probabilities und uncertainties, and that your life achievements will be something that future generations will use as an example in their textbooks about how not to do it, is the tougher position. Science then as I understand it is about finding workable solutions for the problems of daily life.

Back to the post by jacks250, neuropsychology has borrowed a lot from cognitive psychology, sure. The other way round, neuropsychology is a tool to prove the hypotheses that cognitive psychology has generated.

[DrmDoc]