Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 73–94

The artifactual mind: overcoming the ‘inside–outside’ dualism in the extended mind thesis and recognizing the technological dimension of cognition

Article

Abstract

This paper explains why Clark’s Extended Mind thesis is not capable of sufficiently grasping how and in what sense external objects and technical artifacts can become part of our human cognition. According to the author, this is because a pivotal distinction between inside and outside is preserved in the Extended Mind theorist’s account of the relation between the human organism and the world of external objects and artifacts, a distinction which they proclaim to have overcome. Inspired by Charles S. Peirce’s philosophy of mind, in particular, the author tries to find a way out of this ‘inside–outside’ fallacy. External objects, artifacts or processes should, according to him, not be conceived as inanimate and unintelligent matter utilised by a separately living, inner mental sphere that has set certain pre-established goals for itself. Mind has rather an artifactual character. It is not extended by an inner biological cognitive core but rather unfolds itself through objects and artifacts. Mind as such is, especially in our modern technological culture, shaped by virtue of and through technical artifacts. Recognizing this artifactual dimension of mind will, the author concludes, enable a more critical analysis of contemporary claims that ascribe certain original and irreducible features to thinking.

Keywords

Extended mind thesis (EMT) Artifactual mind thesis (AMT) Inside–outside Introspection Technology Peirce 

References

  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2001). The bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 14(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2010). Defending the bounds of cognition. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 67–80). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydin, C. (2007a). Charles S. Peirce: Fenomenologie van Een, Twee en Drie. In C. Aydin (Ed.), De vele Gezichten van de Fenomenologie (pp. 197–218). Kampen/Kapellen: Klement/Pelckmans.Google Scholar
  4. Aydin, C. (2007b). Naar een proces-pragmatische grondslag voor het identiteitsbegrip: Peirce over potentialiteit, interactie en regulariteit. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 69(1), 35–78.Google Scholar
  5. Aydin, C. (2009). On the significance of ideals: Peirce and the good life. Transactions of the C.S. Peirce Society, 45(3), 422–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, G. P. (1998). The private language argument. Language & Communication, 18, 325–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burge, T. (1988). Individualism and self-knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 85(11), 649–663.Google Scholar
  8. Carruthers, P. (2011). The opacity of mind: an integrative theory of self-knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(2), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A. (1997). Being there. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: mind, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, A. (2010). Coupling, constitution, and the cognitive kind: a reply to Adams and Aizawa. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 81–100). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conant, J. (2004). Why worry about the Tractatus? In B. Stocker (Ed.), Post-analytic tractatus (pp. 167–192). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. Dartnall, T. (2005). Does the world leak into the mind? Active externalism, “internalism”, and epistemology. Cognitive Science, 29, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Dennett, D. C. (2003). Who’s on first? Heterophenomenology explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 19–30.Google Scholar
  20. Descartes, R. (1641/1985). Meditations on First Philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch (trans.). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dretske, F. (1999). The mind’s awareness of itself. Philosophical Studies, 95, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engelbart, D. C. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework, Summary Report, SRI Project No. 3578, AFOSR-3223, Contract AF 49(638)-1024 (online: http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/EngelbartPapers/B5_F18_ConceptFrameworkInd.html).
  25. Gallagher, S., & Crisafi, A. (2009). Mental institutions. Topoi, 28, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon, R. M. (2007). Ascent routines for propositional attitudes. Synthese, 159, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilpinen, R. (1993). Authors and artifacts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93, 155–178.Google Scholar
  28. Hurley, S. (2010). The varieties of externalism. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 101–154). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchins, E. (2011). Enculturating the supersized mind. Philosophical Studies, 152, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutchinson, P., & Read, R. (2005). Memento: a philosophical investigation. In R. Read & J. Goodenough (Eds.), Film as philosophy: essays in cinema after Wittgenstein and Cavell. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire.Google Scholar
  31. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington/Minneapolis: University Press (The Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Technology).Google Scholar
  32. Kiran, A. H., & Verbeek, P. P. (2010). Trusting our selves to technology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3–4), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirchhoff, M. D. (2012). Extended cognition and fixed properties: steps to a third-wave version of extended cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11, 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kockelkoren, P. (2003). Technology: art, fairground and theatre. Rotterdam: NAi.Google Scholar
  35. Kockelkoren, P. (2007). The artist as researcher? In P. Kockelkoren (Ed.), Mediated vision (pp. 129–152). Rotterdam: Veenman and ArtEZ.Google Scholar
  36. Lamme, V. (2006). Towards a true neutral stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(11), 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamme, V. (2010). De Vrije wil bestaat niet. Over wie er echt de baas is in het brein. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
  38. Levinson, P. (1988). Mind at large: knowing in the technological age. Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
  39. Lewis, C. I. (1946). An analysis of knowledge and valuation. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  40. Macdonald, C. (2007). Introspection and authoritative self-knowledge. Erkenntnis, 67(2), 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malafouris, L. (2008a). At the potter’s wheel: an argument for material agency. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Malafouris, L. (2008b). Beads for a plastic mind: the ‘Blind Man’s Stick’ (BMS) hypothesis and the active nature of material culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(3), 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marty, R. (1997). 76 definitions of the sign by C. S. Peirce. Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/resources/76defs/76defs/htm.
  44. McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1996). The medium is the message. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Menary, R. (2006). Attacking the bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 19, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Language Sciences, 29, 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Menary, R. (2009). Intentionality, cognitive integration and the continuity thesis. Topoi, 28, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., Cheour, M., Huotilainen, M., Livonen, A., et al. (1997). Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385(30), 432–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peirce, C. S. (1887). Logical machines. The American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935, 1958). Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce, Ch. Hartshorne & P. Weiss; A. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press (abbreviation in text: CP followed by the conventional ‘[volume].[page]’-notation).Google Scholar
  51. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: how to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rupert, R. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 101, 389–428.Google Scholar
  54. Russell, B. (1910). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11, 108–128.Google Scholar
  55. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
  56. Schick, K., & Toth, N. (1993). Making silent stones speak: human evolution and the dawn of technology. New York/London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  57. Selinger, E., & Engström, T. (2008). A moratorium on cyborgs: computation, cognition, and commerce. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skagestad, P. (1993). Thinking with machines: intelligence augmentation, evolutionary epistemology, and semiotic. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Skagestad, P. (1999). Peirce's inkstand as an external embodiment of mind. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 35(3), 551–561.Google Scholar
  60. Sutton, J. (2008). Material agency, skills and history: distributed cognition and the archaeology of memory. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: history, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutton, J. (2013). 'The feel of the world': exograms, habits, and the confusion of types of memory. In Kania, K. (Ed.), Philosophers on Memento. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Sutton, J., Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., & Barnier, A. J. (2010). The psychology of memory, extended cognition, and socially distributed remembering. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 521–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tenner, E. (2003). Our own devices: the past and future of body technology. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  65. Watts, C. M. (2008). On mediation and material agency in the Peircean semeiotic. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Wheeler, M. (2004). Is language the ultimate artefacts? Language Sciences, 26, 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books (BB). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Zahavi, D. (2008). Internalism, externalism, and transcendental idealism. Synthese, 160, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations