Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 41–57 | Cite as

Reasons, Causes, and the Extended Mind Hypothesis

  • Daniel PearlbergEmail author
  • Timothy Schroeder
Original Article
  • 352 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we develop a novel argument against the extended mind hypothesis. Our argument constitutes an advance in the debate, insofar as we employ only premises that are acceptable to a coarse-grained functionalist, and we do not rely on functional disanalogies between putative examples of extended minds and ordinary human beings that are just a matter of fine detail or degree. Thus, we beg no questions against proponents of the extended mind hypothesis. Rather, our argument consists in making use of the following necessary condition on holding a belief for a reason: To believe something for a reason, one must come to believe it in virtue of attitudes that epistemically rationalize the belief that is formed, and one must come to believe in virtue of the fact that these attitudes epistemically rationalize the new belief. We show that many external objects that defenders of the extended mind hypothesis have claimed are (in conjunction with an internal cognitive system) beliefs cannot (even partly) constitute a belief had for a reason, as they necessarily fail to satisfy the necessary condition. Our first thesis, then, is that beliefs had for reasons cannot be extended in the most interesting way specified by the extended mind hypothesis. Furthermore, if we add to our argument the premise that every token belief is something that could have been had for a reason, we can derive the stronger thesis that no beliefs can be extended in this way.

Keywords

Mental Causation Epistemic Reason Extended Mind Mountain Climber Token Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to David Chalmers, Katalin Farkas, two anonymous referees, and especially Declan Smithies for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2008). The bounds of cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2010). Defending the bounds of cognition. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arpaly, N. (2006). Merit, meaning, and human bondage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arpaly, N., & Schroeder, T. (2012). Deliberating and acting for reasons. Philosophical Review, 121, 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arpaly, N., & Schroeder, T. (2013). In praise of desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2010). Memento’s revenge: The extended mind extended. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, S. (2011). There is no argument that the mind extends. Journal of Philosophy, 108, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dennett, D. (1978). Where am I? In Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hebb, D. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagel, T. (1971). Brain bisection and the unity of consciousness. Synthese, 22, 396–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rowland, M. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rupert, R. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 101, 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rupert, R. (2009). Cognitive systems and the extended mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schroeder, T. (2010). Practical rationality is a problem in the philosophy of mind. Philosophical Issues, 20(1), 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spaulding, S. (2012). Overextended cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 25, 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sprevak, M. (2009). Extended cognition and functionalism. Journal of Philosophy, 106(9), 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sutton, J., Harris, C., Keil, P., & Barnier, A. (2010). The psychology of memory, extended cognition, and socially distributed remembering. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9, 521–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turri, J. (2011). Believing for a reason. Erkenntnis, 74(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wedgwood, R. (2006). The normative force of reasoning. Nous, 40, 660–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weiskopf, D. (2008). Patrolling the mind’s boundaries. Erkenntnis, 68(2), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations