David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Monist 82 (2):347-361 (1999)
Dasein is one of several twentieth-century notions which paint a portrait of the “post-Cartesian subject.” Critics of cognitivism such as Dreyfus (1992) have invoked Dasein in arguing that computational models cannot be sufficient to account for situated cognition. Van Gelder (1995) argues that dynamic systems theory provides an empirical model of cognition as practical activity which avoids the Cartesianism implicit in the computational approach. I assess Van Gelder’s claim for dynamic systems as a model of being-in-the-world. Contra Van Gelder, I argue that the force of the “Dasein objection” is that the significance of a mental process, whether representational or not, depends on a lived background of value. While dynamic systems can help model the diachronic interplay between organism and environment, the semantic context for this interplay is no more accounted for here than in traditional computer models
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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 (1997). Computation and Dynamical Models of Mind. Minds and Machines 7 (4):531-41.
Tim van Gelder (1995). What Might Cognition Be If Not Computation? Journal of Philosophy 92 (7):345-81.
Ronald L. Chrisley (1998). What Might Dynamical Intentionality Be, If Not Computation? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
Tim van Gelder (1999). Defending the Dynamic Hypothesis. In Wolfgang Tschacher & J-P Dauwalder (eds.), Dynamics, Synergetics, Autonomous Agents: Nonlinear Systems Approaches to Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science. Singapore: World Scientific.
Andrea Kenkmann (2005). Circles of Solicitude and Concern. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13 (4):477 – 488.
Randall D. Beer (1998). Framing the Debate Between Computational and Dynamical Approaches to Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):630-630.
Tim van Gelder (1998). Computers and Computation in Cognitive Science. In T.M. Michalewicz (ed.), Advances in Computational Life Sciences Vol.2: Humans to Proteins. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.
Nancy J. Nersessian (2006). Model-Based Reasoning in Distributed Cognitive Systems. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):699-709.
Gerard O.’Brien (1998). Digital Computers Versus Dynamical Systems: A Conflation of Distinctions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):648-649.
Gerard O'Brien (1998). Digital Computers Versus Dynamical Systems: A Conflation of Distinctions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):648-649.
John Russon (2008). The Self as Resolution: Heidegger, Derrida and the Intimacy of the Question of the Meaning of Being. Research in Phenomenology 38 (1):90-110.
Quentin Smith (forthcoming). Reply to Vallicella: Heidegger and Idealism. International Philosophical Quarterly.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads1 ( #447,907 of 1,102,446 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #298,159 of 1,102,446 )
How can I increase my downloads?