David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):399-424 (2011)
In this paper, we argue that under certain prevalent interpretations of the nature and aims of cognitive science, theories of cognition generate a forced choice between a conception of cognition which depends on the possibility of a private language, and a conception of cognition which depends on mereological confusions. We argue, further, that this should not pose a fundamental problem for cognitive scientists since a plausible interpretation of the nature and aims of cognitive science is available that does not generate this forced choice. The crucial difference between these interpretations is that on the one hand the aim of theories of cognition is to tell us what thinking (etc.) is, and on the other it is to tell us what is causally necessary if an intelligent creature is to be able to think. Our argument draws heavily on a Wittgensteinian conception of philosophy in which no philosophical theory can explain what thinking, perceiving, remembering, etc. are, either. The positive, strictly therapeutic, purpose of a philosophy of cognitive science should be to show that, since the traditional problems which constitute the philosophy of mind are chimerical, there is nothing for philosophical theorizing in cognitive science to achieve
|Keywords||Private language Mental representation Wittgenstein Mereological fallacy Thinking Personhood Hacker Cognition|
|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
Gareth Evans (1982). Varieties of Reference. Oxford University Press.
Immanuel Kant (2007). Critique of Pure Reason. In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Blackwell Pub. Ltd. 449-451.
Willard V. O. Quine (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.
Maxwell Bennett, Daniel Dennett, Peter Hacker, John Searle & Daniel N. Robinson (2007). Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language. Columbia University Press.
Tim van Gelder (1995). What Might Cognition Be If Not Computation? Journal of Philosophy 92 (7):345-81.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
António Zilhão (ed.) (2005). Evolution, Rationality, and Cognition: A Cognitive Science for the Twenty-First Century. Routledge.
Robert A. Wilson & Lucia Foglia (2011). Embodied Cognition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Dustin Stokes (2013). Cognitive Penetrability of Perception. Philosophy Compass 8 (7):646-663.
Linda B. Smith & Adam Sheya (2010). Is Cognition Enough to Explain Cognitive Development? Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):725-735.
William Bechtel (2010). How Can Philosophy Be a True Cognitive Science Discipline? Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3):357-366.
Richard Samuels (2002). Nativism in Cognitive Science. Mind and Language 17 (3):233-65.
William Bechtel (2009). Constructing a Philosophy of Science of Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (3):548-569.
Marco Mirolli & Domenico Parisi (2009). Language as a Cognitive Tool. Minds and Machines 19 (4):517-528.
E. Margolis, R. Samuels & S. Stich (eds.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press.
Georg Theiner (forthcoming). A Beginner’s Guide to Group Minds. In Jesper Kallestrup & Mark Sprevak (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Mind. Palgrave Macmillan
W. H. Dittrich (1994). Cognition for Science? Book Review of Giere on Scientific Cognition. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
Added to index2011-04-07
Total downloads76 ( #63,167 of 1,902,760 )
Recent downloads (6 months)25 ( #20,147 of 1,902,760 )
How can I increase my downloads?