Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 8, pp 3547–3570 | Cite as

Rethinking the problem of cognition

  • Mikio Akagi
Article

Abstract

The present century has seen renewed interest in characterizing cognition, the object of inquiry of the cognitive sciences. In this paper, I describe the problem of cognition—the absence of a positive characterization of cognition despite a felt need for one. It is widely recognized that the problem is motivated by decades of controversy among cognitive scientists over foundational questions, such as whether non-neural parts of the body or environment can realize cognitive processes, or whether plants and microbes have cognitive processes. The dominant strategy for addressing the problem of cognition is to seek a dichotomous criterion that vindicates some set of controversial claims. However, I argue that the problem of cognition is also motivated by ongoing conceptual development in cognitive science, and I describe four benefits that a characterization of cognition could confer. Given these benefits, I recommend an alternative criterion of success, ecumenical extensional adequacy, on which the aim is to describe the variation in expert judgments rather than to correct this variation by taking sides in sectarian disputes. I argue that if we had an ecumenical solution to the problem of cognition, we would have achieved much of what we should want from a “mark of the cognitive”.

Keywords

Cognition Mark of the cognitive Cognitive science Embodied cognition Extended cognition Conceptual analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for generous feedback on these ideas from many people, including Joseph McCaffrey, Robert Brandom, Edouard Machery, Mark Sprevak, Zoe Drayson, William Bechtel, three anonymous reviewers, and colleagues at the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Glasgow. An earlier version of this paper appears as Chapter 2 of my PhD dissertation, “Cognition in Practice: Conceptual Development and Disagreement in Cognitive Science” (2016, University of Pittsburgh). I received financial support from University of Pittsburgh Department of Philosophy, the University of Pittsburgh Office of the Provost, and the Wesley C. Salmon Fund.

References

  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2001). The bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 14, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2008). The bounds of cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, F., & Garrison, R. (2013). The mark of the cognitive. Minds and Machines, 23, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aizawa, K. (2014). Extended cognition. In L. A. Shapiro (Ed.), The routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 31–38). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Aizawa, K. (2015). Cognition and behavior. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0645-5.
  6. Akagi, M. (2016). Cognition in practice: Conceptual development and disagreement in cognitive science (Doctoral dissertation). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  7. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 90–197). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bacon, F. (1902). Novum organum. New York: P.F. Collier.Google Scholar
  9. Block, N. (1980). Troubles with functionalism. In N. Block (Ed.), Readings in philosophy of psychology (pp. 171–184). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boorse, C. (1977). Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science, 44, 542–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourgine, P., & Stewart, J. (2004). Autopoiesis and cognition. Artificial Life, 10, 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyd, R. N. (1991). Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buckner, C. (2015). A property cluster theory of cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 28, 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burgess, A., & Plunkett, D. (2013a). Conceptual ethics I. Philosophy. Compass, 8, 1091–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burgess, A., & Plunkett, D. (2013b). Conceptual ethics II. Philosophy. Compass, 8, 1102–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calvo Garzón, F. (2007). The quest for cognition in plant neurobiology. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 2, 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chalmers, D. J. (2011). A computational foundation for the study of cognition. Journal of Cognitive Science, 12, 323–357.Google Scholar
  19. Chang, H. (2008). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the philosophy of mind: Replacing scholasticism with science. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 1–27.Google Scholar
  22. Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Philosophy of Science, 78, 67–90.Google Scholar
  23. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Clark, A. (2001). Reasons, robots, and the extended mind. Mind and Language, 16, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clark, A. (2010). Memento’s revenge: The extended mind, extended. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 43–66). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cleland, C. E. (2012). Life without definitions. Synthese, 185, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Eliasmith, C. (2002). The myth of the turing machine: The failure of functionalism and related theses. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gibbs, R. W, Jr. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2002). Environmental complexity and the evolution of cognition. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The evolution of intelligence (pp. 233–249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffiths, P., Machery, E., & Linquist, S. (2009). The vernacular concept of innateness. Mind and Language, 24, 605–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffiths, P., & Stotz, K. (2006). Genes in the postgenomic era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27, 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hallin, D. C. (1986). The uncensored war: The media and Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Haslanger, S. (2000). Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be? Noûs, 34, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hurley, S. L. (1998). Consciousness in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lewis, D. K. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Marino, L. (1995). Mental disorder as a Roschian concept: A critique of Wakefield’s ‘harmful dysfunction’ analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lyon, P. (2006). The biogenic approach to cognition. Cognitive Processing, 7, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Machery, E. (2012). Why I stopped worrying about the definition of life.. and why you should as well. Synthese, 185, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Noë, A. (2006). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ohlsson, S. (1993). Abstract schemas. Educational Psychologist, 28, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orlandi, N. (2014). The innocent eye: Why vision is not a cognitive process. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prinz, J. (2004). Gut reactions: A perceptual theory of emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Putnam, H. (1967). The mental life of some machines. In H.-N. Castañeda (Ed.), Intentionality, minds, and perception. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ramsey, W. M. (1992). Prototypes and conceptual analysis. Topoi, 11, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramsey, W. M. (2007). Representation reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ramsey, W. M. (2015). Must cognition be representational? Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0644-6.
  59. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2008). The cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rowlands, M. (2009). Extended cognition and the mark of the cognitive. Philosophical Psychology, 22, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rumelhart, D. E. (1989). The architecture of mind: A connectionist approach. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 133–159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rupert, R. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 51, 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rupert, R. (2009). Cognitive systems and the extended mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rupert, R. (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, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shapiro, L. A. (2013). Dynamics and cognition. Minds and Machines, 23, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sprevak, M. (2009). Extended cognition and functionalism. The Journal of Philosophy, 106, 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stewart, J. (1996). Cognition = life: Implications for higher-level cognition. Behavioural Processes, 35, 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stich, S. (1983). From folk psychology to cognitive science: The case against belief. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
  72. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Thompson, E. (2010). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Trewavas, A. (2003). Aspects of plant intelligence. Annals of Botany, 92, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  76. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Duijn, M., Keijzer, F., & Franken, D. (2006). Principles of minimal cognition: Casting cognition as sensorimotor coordination. Adaptive Behavior, 14, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van Gelder, T. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 615–665.Google Scholar
  80. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  81. von Helmholtz, H. (1867). Handbuch der physiologischen Optik. Leipzig: Voss.Google Scholar
  82. Wakefield, J. C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Walter, S. (2010). Cognitive extension: The parity argument, functionalism, and the mark of the cognitive. Synthese, 177, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Webb, B. (1994). Robotic experiments in cricket phonotaxis. In D. Cliff, P. Husbands, J.-A. Meyer, & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats 3: Proceedings of the third international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior (pp. 45–54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  85. Wilson, M. (2006). Wandering significance: An essay on conceptual behavior. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson, R. A. (2010). Review of Robert D. Rupert’s cognitive systems and the extended mind. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, March 7, 2010. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24309-cognitive-systems-and-the-extended-mind/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John V. Roach Honors CollegeTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations