Five Reasons to Doubt the Existence of a Geometric Module
Cognitive Science 34 (7):1315-1356 (2010)
| Abstract | It is frequently claimed that the human mind is organized in a modular fashion, a hypothesis linked historically, though not inevitably, to the claim that many aspects of the human mind are innately specified. A specific instance of this line of thought is the proposal of an innately specified geometric module for human reorientation. From a massive modularity position, the reorientation module would be one of a large number that organized the mind. From the core knowledge position, the reorientation module is one of five innate and encapsulated modules that can later be supplemented by use of human language. In this paper, we marshall five lines of evidence that cast doubt on the geometric module hypothesis, unfolded in a series of reasons: (1) Language does not play a necessary role in the integration of feature and geometric cues, although it can be helpful. (2) A model of reorientation requires flexibility to explain variable phenomena. (3) Experience matters over short and long periods. (4) Features are used for true reorientation. (5) The nature of geometric information is not as yet clearly specified. In the final section, we review recent theoretical approaches to the known reorientation phenomena | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPhilip Gerrans & Valerie E. Stone (2008). Generous or Parsimonious Cognitive Architecture? Cognitive Neuroscience and Theory of Mind. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):121-141.
Philip Gerrans (2002). The Theory of Mind Module in Evolutionary Psychology. Biology and Philosophy 17 (3):305-21.
Alan M. Leslie & Brian J. Scholl (1999). Modularity, Development and 'Theory of Mind'. Mind and Language 14 (1).
Brian J. Scholl & Alan M. Leslie (1999). Modularity, Development and "Theory of Mind". Mind and Language 14 (1):131-153.
John M. Collins (2005). Faculty Disputes. Mind and Language 19 (5):503-33.
Saskia van Dantzig, Antonino Raffone & Bernhard Hommel (2011). Acquiring Contextualized Concepts: A Connectionist Approach. Cognitive Science 35 (6):1162-1189.
Giorgio Vallortigara & Valeria Anna Sovrano (2002). Conjoining Information From Different Modules: A Comparative Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):701-702.
Peter Carruthers (2006). The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind. In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Blackwell.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-11Total downloads7 ( #133,532 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
