David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Houston Studies in Cognitive Science 1 (2000)
Dreyfus enlists the aid of Merleau-Ponty in his critique of representationalist theories of cognition. Such theories posit a representational element at some level of cognitive activity. The nature of the representation and how we think of it will depend upon the level at which one claims to find it. If we consider the case of perception, at one extreme it might be claimed that the representation is a conscious one, that is, that the perceiving subject is conscious of a representation, a _Vorstellung_ in the Kantian sense. In this case, it would clearly come between the perceiving subject and the world and in that sense interfere with a direct perception of the world. This sort of representational theory would be equivalent to idealism, and for good phenomenological reasons it is rejected by Merleau-Ponty and Dreyfus. At the other extreme, it is possible to find cognitive scientists talking about representations at the level of brain activity. Neural representations, either firing patterns or the actual "hard wiring" of neuronal connections (as, for example, neural maps in the somatosensory and motor areas responsible for the experience of the subject's own body), in some way enable perception. At this level of description there are various debates about how these mechanisms can be called representational. If the concept of representation involves reference to the perceptual field, in what sense does a neuronal pattern refer? There are also the familiar debates about how such mechanisms actually function, as well as the difficult problem of how such functions actually translate into personal level experience. Before these debates get off the ground, however, Dreyfus wants to steal the ammunition. He denies that there are representations at the level of brain processes.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Chris Eliasmith, Structure Without Symbols: Providing a Distributed Account of High-Level Cognition.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (2000). A Merleau-Pontyian Critique of Husserl's and Searle's Representationalist Accounts of Action. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (3):287–302.
Albert Newen & Kai Vogeley (2003). Self-Representation: Searching for a Neural Signature of Self-Consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 12 (4):529-543.
Shaun Gallagher (2008). Are Minimal Representations Still Representations? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (3):351 – 369.
Jonathan Webber (2002). Doing Without Representation: Coping with Dreyfus. Philosophical Explorations 5 (1):82-88.
Grant R. Gillett (1989). Representations and Cognitive Science. Inquiry 32 (September):261-77.
Leslie F. Stevenson (2000). Synthetic Unities of Experience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):281-306.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (2002). Intelligence Without Representation – Merleau-Ponty's Critique of Mental Representation the Relevance of Phenomenology to Scientific Explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1 (4):367-383.
Dan Ryder (2009). Problems of Representation I: Nature and Role. In John Symons Paco Calvo (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology. Routledge 233.
Jennifer Hudin (2006). Motor Intentionality and its Primordiality. Inquiry 49 (6):573 – 590.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #100,189 of 1,902,049 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #346,256 of 1,902,049 )
How can I increase my downloads?