Synthese 177:285-300 (2010)
|Abstract||During the past decade, the so-called “hypothesis of cognitive extension,” according to which the material vehicles of some cognitive processes are spatially distributed over the brain and the extracranial parts of the body and the world, has received lots of attention, both favourable and unfavourable. The debate has largely focussed on three related issues: (1) the role of parity considerations, (2) the role of functionalism, and (3) the importance of a mark of the cognitive. This paper critically assesses these issues and their interconnections. Section 1 provides a brief introduction. Section 2 argues that some of the most prominent objections against the appeal to parity considerations fail. Section 3 shows that such considerations are nevertheless unsuitable as an argument for cognitive extension. First, the actual argumentative burden is carried by an underlying commitment to functionalism, not by the parity considerations themselves. Second, in the absence of an independently motivated mark of the cognitive, the argument based on parity considerations does not get off the ground, but given such a mark, it is superfluous. Section 4 argues that a similar dilemma arises for the attempt to defend cognitive extension by a general appeal to functionalism. Unless it can be independently settled what it is for a process to be cognitive, functionalism itself will be undermined by the possibility of cognitive extension. Like parity considerations, functionalism is thus either unable to support cognitive extension or superfluous. Hence, nothing short of the specification of an appropriate mark of the cognitive that can be fulfilled not only by intracranial but also by extended processes will do as an argument for cognitive extension.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Menary (2012). Cognitive Practices and Cognitive Character. Philosophical Explorations 15 (2):147 - 164.
Robert D. Rupert (2013). “Memory, Natural Kinds, and Cognitive Extension; or, Martians Don't Remember, and Cognitive Science Is Not About Cognition”. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (1):25-47.
Tom Roberts (2012). You Do the Maths: Rules, Extension, and Cognitive Responsibility. Philosophical Explorations 15 (2):133 - 145.
Victor Loughlin (2013). Sketch This: Extended Mind and Consciousness Extension. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12 (1):41-50.
Ronald N. Giere (2011). Distributed Cognition as Human Centered Although Not Human Bound: Reply to Vaesen 1. Social Epistemology 25 (4):393 - 399.
Mark Sprevak (2009). Extended Cognition and Functionalism. Journal of Philosophy 106 (9):503-527.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Extended Cognition and the Mark of the Cognitive. Philosophical Psychology 22 (1):1 – 19.
Andy Clark (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford University Press.
Zoe Drayson (2010). Extended Cognition and the Metaphysics of Mind. Cognitive Systems Research 11 (4):367-377.
Seth Miller (2011). A Review of “Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension”. [REVIEW] World Futures 66 (7):525-529.
Sean Allen-Hermanson (2012). Superdupersizing the Mind: Extended Cognition and the Persistence of Cognitive Bloat. Philosophical Studies 158 (1): 1-16.
David Papineau (1984). Representation and Explanation. Philosophy of Science 51 (December):550-72.
Added to index2011-05-08
Total downloads25 ( #49,575 of 549,068 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,099 of 549,068 )
How can I increase my downloads?