Abstract
Let me put up my hand straight away: I am a naturalist about cognition. What does this mean? First things first: I take ‘cognition’ to be a catch-all term encompassing the various states and processes that we typically identify as psychological phenomena (the states and processes of memory, perception, reasoning, etc.). The guiding thought of naturalism is that philosophy should be continuous with empirical science. So the naturalist about cognition (that’s me) thinks that the philosophical understanding of cognition (of the states and processes of memory, perception, reasoning, etc.) should be continuous with cognitive science. I take the naturalist notion of continuity with empirical science to be determined by the following principle of conflict resolution (Wheeler 2013): if and when there is a genuine clash between philosophy and some eminently well-supported (by the data) empirical science, then that is a good reason for the philosopher to at least revisit her claims, with a view to withdrawal or revision. The envisaged clash, on its own anyway, puts no such pressure upon the scientist. So where phenomenology (as a branch of philosophy) and well-supported cognitive science conflict, it is the phenomenologist, and not the cognitive scientist, who should revisit her claims.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Clark, A. 2013. Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3): 181–204.
Dennett, D.C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown.
Dreyfus, H.L. 2008. Why Heideggerian AI Failed and How Fixing It Would Require Making It More Heideggerian. In The Mechanical Mind in History, ed. P. Husbands, O. Holland, and M. Wheeler, 331–371. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted in Heidegger and Cognitive Science, ed. J. Kiverstein and M. Wheeler, 62–104, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. A shortened version appears under the same title in Philosophical Psychology, 20(2): 247–268, 2007. Another version appears in Artificial Intelligence, 171, 1137–1160, 2007.
Fabrega, H., and H. Nutini. 1993. Witchcraft-Explained Childhood Tragedies in Tlaxcala, and their Medical Sequelae. Social Science and Medicine 36(6): 793–805.
Freeman, W. 2000. How Brains Make Up Their Minds. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gallagher, S. 2005. How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, S. 2008. Are Minimal Representations still Representations? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16(3): 351–369, special issue on Situated Cognition: Perspectives from Phenomenology and Science, ed. M. Ratcliffe and S. Gallagher.
Gallagher, S., and D. Zahavi. 2008. The Phenomenological Mind: an Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science. London: Routledge.
Heidegger, M. 1927/1962. Being and Time. Trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Noë, A. 2004. Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roediger, L., and D. Gallo. 2005. Associative Memory Illusions. In Cognitive Illusions: a Handbook of Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. R. Pohl, 309–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rowlands, M. 2001. The Nature of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowlands, M. 2010. The New Science of the Mind: from Extended Mind to Embodied Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rupert, R. 2009. Cognitive Systems and the Extended Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwitzgebel, E. 2008. The Unreliability of Naive Introspection. Philosophical Review 117(2): 245–273.
Searle, J.R. 1993. The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Varela, F.J., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wheeler, M. 2005. Reconstructing The Cognitive World: The Next Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wheeler, M. 2010. Plastic Machines: Behavioural Diversity and the Turing Test. Kybernetes 39(3): 466–480.
Wheeler, M. 2013. Science Friction: Phenomenology, Naturalism, and Cognitive Science. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 72: 135–167.
Wheeler, M., and E. Di Paolo. 2011. Existentialism and Cognitive Science. In Continuum Companion to Existentialism, ed. F. Joseph, J. Reynolds, and A. Woodward, 241–259. London: Continuum.
Acknowledgements
Some passages in section ‘Moving to the Continent’ of this chapter have been adapted, with revision, from Wheeler (2013), where a more detailed treatment of the relationship between phenomenology and naturalism may be found. For useful critical discussion of the ideas presented here, many thanks to Rob Rupert, Peter Sullivan, James Williams, and audiences at Bristol, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Hull, and Stirling.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wheeler, M. (2016). The Rest is Science: What Does Phenomenology Tell Us About Cognition?. In: Reynolds, J., Sebold, R. (eds) Phenomenology and Science. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51605-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51605-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-94877-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51605-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)