At Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:52:45 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Joe,
>I want to make sure I understand your thinking here. If I am not I am sure
>you will set me straight.
>You are of the belief that psychological laws exist just as the laws of
>physics do. That is what you have stated.
>I dismissed the examples that you supplied not the reference materials.
>
I believe, and current cognitive science bears me out on this, that there is a sequential chronological order of brain maturation, occurring in critical periods, which cannot be transgressed, whereby earlier phases must be realized before later ones because they build upon the foundations provided by them. This can even be seen when we dissect the brains of children who died at different ages. The progressive dendritic and axonal myelinization (this permits greater rate of synaptic transmission between neurons) follows a distinct pattern and order, which may be matched with improvement in the efficiency of the functions performed by the areas of the brain in which it occurs relative to their prior performance, when we test these functions in live children of different ages. I refer you to "Asymmetrical Brain Specialization: Proposed Relationship Between its Development and Cognitive Development" by R. Harter Kraft, to be found in PSYCHOPHYSICAL ASPECTS OF READING AND LEARNI!
NG, Vol.1 of Monographs in Psychobiology, An Integrated Approach, edited by Victor M. Rentel, Samuel A Corson & Bruce R. Dunn (a professor of mine), published in 1985 by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers (pp. 219-262), where it is stated that"...the myelogenetic cycles of the brain appear to parallel the Piagetian stages of cogniyive development." (p. 244), and "...maturation of brain areas appears to follow an invariant sequence..." (p.246). Here's a longer quote (also from p. 246).
"Thus, the advanced stages in Piaget's theory of cognitive development may be mediated by increased functional commitmentof myelinated fibers within specific systems (in one or both hemispheres) as well as increasingly efficient interfacing of these programs. Further, mutual inhibition of competing areas, both within and across the two systems presumably increases as the interhemispheric commisures, attentional fibers and other subcortical inhibitory mechanisms mature. As inhibitory mechanisms become more efficient, programs within each system become more specialized by mutually inhibiting competing programs (Brown 1976; Kinsbourne 1974a, b; Levy 1968). The increased specialization and functional commitment of fiber systems [such as the corpus callosum] accompanied by the mutual inhibition of other competing programs may result in periods of functional reorganization similar to the brain reorganization found in other primates (Goldman 1975; Goldman et al. 1974; Kraft 1! 984; Miller et al. 1973). As mentioned earlier, interacting systems should establish functional capabilities over time that are not possible for either processing system alone. The larger system probably becomes increasingly capable of more and more complex processing because it processes information in stages: beginning with one specialized program, which then sends the results to be processed by another specialized program, etc."
>
>( The article )-most of the other bright boys were happy playing with the
>toys set before them ( The laws of physics )but one fellow was not he
>wanted to know why. The guy even makes reference to his pears not wanting to
>stretch their minds. These fellows are no doubt a pretty clever group. But
>they have been compromised by the aging process. This problem of being
>inflexible is discussed in a book I usually use as a coaster The principals
>of Logic by Aikins 1904.
>
Yet Roy Frieden, the person who discovered the I law, like Einstein, Heisenberg and Newton before him, was an adult when he did it, thus their brains were flexible enough THEN. One can have TOO flexible a mind, like a limp noodle that will flap any which way the wind blows. Some New Age White Light FluffyBunny types have this problem, even as adults. Outside of music and drawing (which are performative arts) and (rarely) mathematics, truly innovative and creative prodigies are rare.
>
>Also just so that I am clear on this you believe the three levels deal to be correct.
>
I do not subscribe to Richard Brodie's hierarchical categorization schema.
>
You are concerned by the progressive canalization of primordially plastic minds, but this is a GOOD thing. It is akin to an operating system emerging within our wet computers. Remember that a candle can illuminate farther when its omnidirectional light is parabolically focussed into a beam, which may then be directed anywhere one chooses.
>
>Jim
>
>Jim Callahan magicjim@islc.net
>Creator of Applied Thought Technologies
>http://www.magicjim.net
>
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net