"Active perception" is no more a theory of "SGCS" than "dreams" are a theory of "Psychoanalysis". The phenomenon of active perception has been obvious to philosophers since Kant, and to all psychologists barring those who took a dogmatic "behaviorist posture" in order to mimic the hard sciences. Your claim of "radical theoretical shifts" is ludicrous.
In order to demonstrate the particular claims of "SGCS" you would need to demonstrate that the disolution of mind-body duality advocated by SGCS specifically predicted the details of "active perception". It does NOT, any more than a particular psychoanalytic framework (e.g Freud) specifically predicted the details of dreams. (Freudian patients dreamed Freudian dreams, Jungian patients dreamed Jungian dreams etc, etc.) And the fact that "SGCS" is a whole constellation of speculations loosely based around the biological origins of "cognition" puts its "scientific status" on a par with the whole of "psychoanalysis" rather than a single theoretical stance.
(BTW It is significant that Popper used Psychoanalysis as a specific example of "pseudoscience".)
For your information, there IS a strand of mind-body monism which does promote the political theme of "technological caution" which you erroneously seem to ascribe to Bohm's "critical thinking".That strand is well described in Capra's "Web of Life" as a Khunian paradigm shift towards "deep ecology". In order to bring Bohm into the picture at all you need to understand his mystical leanings towards "holistic consciousness" and his speculations on "implicate order". Such leanings were partially a result of the "togetherness thinking" promoted by his spiritual associate J. Krishnamurti (see "The Ending of Time").
Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 09/01/09 03:03 AM.
