How to demarcate the boundaries of cognition

Abstract

Advocates of extended cognition argue that the boundaries of cognition span brain, body, and environment. Critics maintain that cognitive processes are confined to a boundary centered on the individual. All participants to this debate require a criterion for distinguishing what is internal to cognition from what is external. Yet none of the available proposals are completely successful. I offer a new account, the mutual manipulability account, according to which cognitive boundaries are determined by relationships of mutual manipulability between the properties and activities of putative components and the overall behavior of the cognitive mechanism in which they figure. Among its main advantages, this criterion is capable of (a) distinguishing components of cognition from causal background conditions and lower-level correlates, and (b) showing how the core hypothesis of extended cognition can serve as a legitimate empirical hypothesis amenable to experimental test and confirmation. Conceiving the debate in these terms transforms the current clash over extended cognition into a substantive empirical debate resolvable on the basis of evidence from cognitive science and neuroscience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout the paper, I will use ‘component’ to refer specifically to parts of a mechanism, system, object, or process bearing appropriate relationships of mutual manipulability to the phenomenon as a whole (“The mutual manipulability criterion” section). Consequently, not every arbitrarily subdivided part of a given object will count as a component. See Craver (2007b) for similar treatment. One exception will be in “The Simon-Haugeland bandwidth criterion” section, where Haugeland’s alternative views about individuating system components and boundaries are discussed.

  2. 2.

    The second aspect of their criterion—that cognition involves a distinctive form of causal process—is also problematic, and has been subject to a number of challenges including Clark (2005, 2008). For brevity, I focus only on problems associated with the first aspect.

  3. 3.

    See Dennett (1987) for original critical discussion. For more recent discussion of non-derived content in the context of the EC debate, see Clark (2005, 2008). For a rebuttal, see Adams and Aizawa (2008).

  4. 4.

    It should be acknowledged that Clark (2008) explicitly denies that the parity principle operates as anything more than a heuristic device or “intuitive probe” to loosen commitments to the idea of a skin/skull boundary for cognition. However, it is as close as defenders of EC come to offering an explicit demarcation criterion. Rowlands (2010) is one notable exception.

  5. 5.

    Shear force is defined as a force applied parallel or tangential to the surface of a given material. In this context, it increases the animal’s resistance to sliding along a surface.

  6. 6.

    Surface energy describes the disruption of intermolecular bonds occurring at the surface of a liquid or solid.

  7. 7.

    See Craver (2007b) for further discussion.

  8. 8.

    Clark and Chalmers emphatically announce: “[w]e cannot point to the skin/skull boundary as justification [for the boundaries of cognition], since the legitimacy of that boundary is precisely what is at issue” (1998, 8). Critics of EC are thus understandably reluctant to employ spatial criteria to delimit cognitive boundaries so as to avoid charges of question-begging.

  9. 9.

    Adams and Aizawa (2008) pose several additional challenges for Haugeland’s criterion. Adequately addressing their arguments against Haugeland’s account, however, goes beyond the scope of this paper.

  10. 10.

    Thanks to Georg Theiner for bringing Clark’s discussion to my attention.

  11. 11.

    Grush (2003) proposes the plug points criterion as a means of delimiting boundaries along similar lines.

  12. 12.

    Although manipulability theories of causal explanation are commonly expressed using variables, one should not infer that such accounts are committed to causal relationships holding between “abstracta” rather than objects and properties in the world. See Craver (2007a, 94–95) and Woodward (2003, 14) for further discussion.

  13. 13.

    The term ‘level’ here means mechanistic level, i.e., the set of component parts and activities responsible for producing a phenomenon or performing some higher-level role (Craver 2007a, b). Lower mechanistic levels bear a compositional relationship to higher mechanistic levels in the sense that lower-level parts are components of the mechanism for a phenomenon at some higher level. A crucial feature of mechanistic levels is that they support recursive decomposition. The activities of components in a mechanism responsible for some phenomenon (constituting one mechanistic level) can themselves be viewed as phenomena to be explained, and still lower-level activities and entities can subsequently be identified in their explanations.

  14. 14.

    One might reasonably wonder about the relevant timescales for assessing relationships of mutual manipulability. Because the mutual manipulability account takes direct guidance from scientific practice, answers about the timescales over which such relationships operate will ultimately be guided and constrained by the relevant science. Since this paper focuses on EC claims in certain sectors of cognitive science and neuroscience, the relevant timescales are primarily organismal ones (e.g., developmental, behavioral, and neural). It is, however, beyond the scope of the paper to defend this proposition in any detail or address how the current account handles relationships that occur more slowly over generational and evolutionary timescales such as cumulative changes in technologies and other forms of cognitive scaffolding in human physical and social environments. I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this issue.

  15. 15.

    Bechtel and Richardson (1993), Craver and Darden (2001), and Craver (2002) have also discussed these experimental strategies and the critical role they play in the development of mechanistic explanations.

  16. 16.

    It should be noted that intra-level interventions (intervention and observation at the same mechanistic level) do sometimes play a limited role in establishing componency claims. They can help to refine our characterizations of the phenomenon to be explained and improve our understanding of the organization of components and their activities within one mechanistic level. Nevertheless, intra-level experiments are primarily useful for testing standard etiological-causal claims (e.g., speeding up reaching movements causes increased endpoint variance; increasing cognitive load increases reaction times; increasing the flow of Na+ into a neuron causes Na+ channels to open, etc.); and inter-level interventions remain the principal means by which componency claims are tested and confirmed. See Craver (2007a, b) for further discussion.

  17. 17.

    One might object that preventing blood flow to a region would quickly degrade task performance, perhaps along with other long-term consequences, and thus this process should count as a component. However, because regional increase in cerebral blood flow temporally lags behind neural activation by some small amount, it is safe to assume that preventing those changes cannot, strictly speaking, alter either neural activation or the task performance it supports. An ideal intervention to selectively suppress only the time-lagged hemodynamic response following activation would demonstrate this.

  18. 18.

    Muscles, like springs, vary in stiffness. Applying the same load force to two springs of varying thicknesses will produce different increases in spring length directly proportional to their thickness (i.e., a thick spring will increase its length less than a thin one).

  19. 19.

    It should be noted that additional control experiments were conducted to rule out alternative explanations for degraded performance such as lower visual resolution across the entire workspace due to enforced central fixation. See Ballard et al. (1995) for further details.

References

  1. Adams F, Aizawa K (2001) The bounds of cognition. Philos Psychol 14:43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams F, Aizawa K (2008) The bounds of cognition. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams F, Aizawa K (2010) Defending the bounds of cognition. In: Menary R (ed) The extended mind. Ashgate, Aldershot

  4. Autumn K (2006) How gecko toes stick. Am Sci 94:124–132

    Google Scholar 

  5. Autumn K, Liang YA, Shie ST, Zesch W, Chan WP, Kenny TW, Fearing R, Full RJ (2000) Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature 405:681–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ballard D, Hayhoe M, Pelz J (1995) Memory representations in natural tasks. Cogn Neurosci 7:66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bechtel W (2008) Mental mechanisms: philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Routledge, London

  8. Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clark A (1997) Being there: putting brain, body, and world together again. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Clark A (1999) An embodied cognitive science? Trends Cogn Sci 3(9):345–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark A (2005) Intrinsic content, active memory, and the extended mind. Analysis 65(10):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clark A (2007) Curing cognitive hiccups: a defense of the extended mind. J Philos 104(4):163–192

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clark A (2008) Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clark A, Chalmers DJ (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58:10–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Craver CF (2002) Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philos Sci Suppl 69:S83–S97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Craver CF (2007a) Explaining the brain. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Craver CF (2007b) Constitutive explanatory relevance. J Philos Res 32:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  18. Craver CF, Darden L (2001) Discovering mechanisms in neurobiology: the case of spatial memory. In: Machamer PK, Grush R, McLaughlin P (eds) Theory and method in neuroscience. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 112–137

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dennett DC (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  20. Feldman AG, Levin MF (1995) Positional frames of reference in motor control: origin and use. Behav Brain Sci 18(4):723–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisk J, Lackner JR, Dizio P (1993) Gravitoinertial force level influences arm movement control. J Neurophysiol 69(2):504–511

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fodor JA (2009) Where is my mind? Review of supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Lond Rev Books 31(3):13–15

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grush R (2003) In defense of some ‘Cartesian’ assumptions concerning the brain and its operation. Biol Philos 18:53–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Haugeland J (1995/1998) Mind embodied and embedded. Acta Philosophica Fennica 58:233–267 (Reprinted in Haugeland, J. Having Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Logothetis NK (2008) What we can and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453:869–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nelson WL (1983) Physical principles for economies of skilled movements. Biol Cybern 46:135–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Polger T (2004) Natural minds. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Polit A, Bizzi E (1978) Processes controlling arm movements in monkeys. Science 201(4362):1235–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Putnam H (1975) The nature of mental states. In: Mind, language, and reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  31. Rodieck RW (1998) The first steps in seeing. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  32. Romo R, Hernández A, Zainos A, Salinas E (1998) Somatosensory discrimination based on cortical microstimulation. Nature 392(6674):387–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rowlands M (1999) The body in mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rowlands M (2010) The new science of the mind: from extended mind to embodied phenomenology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rumelhart DE, Smolensky P, McClelland JL, Hinton G (1986) Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In: McClelland JL, Rumelhart D (eds) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2: psychological and biological models. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 7–57

  36. Rupert R (2004) Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. J Philos 101(8):389–428

    Google Scholar 

  37. Searle J (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3:417–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shadmehr R, Wise SP (2005) The computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing: a foundation for motor learning. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shapiro LA (2009) Review of the bounds of cognition. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 8:267–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Talbot WH, Darian-Smith I, Kornhuber HH, Mountcastle VB (1968) The sense of flutter-vibration: comparison of the human capacity with response patterns of mechanoreceptive afferents from the monkey hand. J Neurophysiol 31(2):301–334

    Google Scholar 

  42. Velliste M, Perel S, Spalding MC, Whitford AS, Schwartz AB (2008) Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature 453:1098–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wheeler M (2010) Extended functionalism. In: Menary R (ed) The extended mind. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson RA (2004) Boundaries of the Mind: the individual in the fragile sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 3:1212–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Woodward J (2003) Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press, New York

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jake Beck, Carl Craver, Philip Gerrans, Peter Langland-Hassan, Gerard O'Brien, and Gualtiero Piccinini for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper. Thanks also to an anonymous reviewer and the editor at the journal for constructive feedback.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Michael Kaplan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaplan, D.M. How to demarcate the boundaries of cognition. Biol Philos 27, 545–570 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9308-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Extended cognition
  • Embodied cognition
  • Mutual manipulability
  • Intervention
  • Mechanism