Reconsidering the role of overcoming perturbations in cognitive development: constructivism and consicousness
Human Development 47 (2):77-93 (2004)
|Abstract||Constructivist theory must choose between the hypothesis that felt perturbation drives cognitive development (the priority of felt perturbation) and the hypothesis that the particular process that eventually produces new cognitive structures first produces felt perturbation (the continuity of process). There is ambivalence in Piagetian theory regarding this choice. The prevalent account of constructivist theory adopts the priority of felt perturbation. However, on occasion Piaget has explicitly rejected it, simultaneously endorsing the continuity of process. First, I explicate and support this latter position, arguing that felt perturbation emerges after the construction of a new cognitive structure has already begun. Next, I discuss the broader significance of rejecting the priority of felt perturbation in terms of a distinction between two types of theory of effective change, labeled Lamarckian and Darwinian in analogy with familiar theories of evolutionary change. Rejecting the priority of felt perturbation allows the development of a Darwinian perspective. In turn, the Darwinian perspective offers advantages for elaborating the analogy Piaget proposed between consciousness and the relation of form and content.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Itaï Ben Yaacov (2008). Topometric Spaces and Perturbations of Metric Structures. Logic and Analysis 1 (3-4):235-272.
Eric Dietrich & Valerie Gray Hardcastle (2002). A Connecticut Yalie in King Descartes' Court. Newsletter of Cognitive Science Society (Now Defunct).
Michael Anderson, The Metacognitive Loop I: Enhancing Reinforcement Learning with Metacognitive Monitoring and Control for Improved Perturbation Tolerance||.
Andreas Demetriou (2000). From Neural Constructivism to Cognitive Constructivism: The Steps to Be Taken. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):781-782.
Alexander Rueger (2001). Explanations at Multiple Levels. Minds and Machines 11 (4):503-520.
Juan Balbi (2008). Epistemological and Theoretical Foundations of Constructivist Cognitive Therapies: Post-Rationalist Developments. Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 1 (1):15-27.
Clark Glymour, The Computational and Experimental Complexity of Gene Perturbations for Regulatory Network Search.
Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu (2008). Student-Centred Philosophy. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 37:35-41.
Jan Boom (1989). Different Conceptions of Stage in Theories of Cognitive and Moral Development. Journal of Moral Education 18 (3):208-217.
Peter C. M. Molenaar & Han L. J. van der Maas (2000). Neural Constructivism or Self-Organization? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):783-784.
Brian Ribeiro (2009). Hume's Changing Views on the 'Durability' of Scepticism. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 7 (2):215-236.
Tom Rockmore (2006). Hegel and Epistemological Constructivism. Idealistic Studies 36 (3):183-190.
Olaf Sporns (1997). Deconstructing Neural Constructivism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):576-577.
Stevan Harnad (1982). Neoconstructivism: A Unifying Constraint for the Cognitive Sciences. In Thomas W. Simon & Robert J. Scholes (eds.), [Book Chapter]. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Added to index2010-11-01
Total downloads14 ( #90,445 of 722,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,742 )
How can I increase my downloads?