Graduate studies at Western
Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (1):15-32 (2012)
|Abstract||Much recent cognitive neuroscientific work on body knowledge is representationalist: “body schema” and “body images”, for example, are cerebral representations of the body (de Vignemont 2009). A framework assumption is that representation of the body plays an important role in cognition. The question is whether this representationalist assumption is compatible with the variety of broadly situated or embodied approaches recently popular in the cognitive neurosciences: approaches in which cognition is taken to have a ‘direct’ relation to the body and to the environment. A “direct” relation is one where the boundaries between the body and the head, or between the environment and the animal are not theoretically important in the understanding of cognition. These boundaries do not play a theoretically privileged role in cognitive explanations of behavior. But representationalism appears to put a representational veil between the locus of cognition and that which is represented, making cognitive relations to the body and to the environment be indirect, with a high associated computational load. For this reason, direct approaches have tried to minimize the use of internal representations (Suchman 1987; Barwise 1987; Agre and Chapman 1987; Brooks 1992; Thelen and Smith 1994; van Gelder 1995; Port and van Gelder 1995; Clark 1997, 1999; Rupert 2009, p. 180). Does a cognitive neuroscience committed to direct relations rule out a representationalist approach to body knowledge? Or is direct representationalism possible?|
|Keywords||representation embodied cognition perception formality constraint nonconceptual content mediational content extended mind normativity affect affordance|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jacob Beck (2012). The Generality Constraint and the Structure of Thought. Mind 121 (483):563-600.
Adrian Cussins (1992). Content, Embodiment, and Objectivity: The Theory of Cognitive Trails. Mind 101 (404):651-88.
Jeff Speaks (2005). Is There a Problem About Nonconceptual Content? Philosophical Review 114 (3):359-98.
Christopher Peacocke (1994). Nonconceptual Content: Kinds, Rationales, and Relations. Mind and Language 4 (4):419-29.
Adrian J. T. Smith (2009). Acting on (Bodily) Experience. Psyche 15 (1):82 - 99.
Richard Heck (2000). Nonconceptual Content and the "Space of Reasons&Quot;. Philosophical Review 109 (4):483-523.
Kristina Musholt (2013). Self-Consciousness and Nonconceptual Content. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):649-672.
Jose Luis Bermudez (1994). Peacocke's Argument Against the Autonomy of Nonconceptual Representational Content. Mind and Language 9 (4):402-18.
Gary C. Hatfield (2009). Perception and Cognition: Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Daniel D. Hutto (1999). Cognition Without Representation? In A. Reigler & Markus F. Peschl (eds.), Understanding Representation. Plenum Press.
Adrian Cussins (2003). Content, Conceptual Content, and Nonconceptual Content. In York H. Gunther (ed.), Essays on Nonconceptual Content. MIT Press.
Jiajie Zhang & Vimla L. Patel (2006). Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance. Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (2):333-341.
Robert C. Cummins (1992). Conceptual Role Semantics and the Explanatory Role of Content. Philosophical Studies 65 (1-2):103-127.
Dave Ward & Mog Stapleton (2012). Es Are Good. Cognition as Enacted, Embodied, Embedded, Affective and Extended. In Fabio Paglieri (ed.), Consciousness in Interaction: The role of the natural and social context in shaping consciousness.
Jennifer Hudin (2006). Motor Intentionality and its Primordiality. Inquiry 49 (6):573 – 590.
Added to index2012-04-26
Total downloads96 ( #8,523 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)31 ( #3,848 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?