Situated Cognition: A Field Guide to Some Open Conceptual and Ontological Issues

Abstract

This paper provides an overview over the debate about so-called “situated approaches to cognition” that depart from the intracranialism associated with traditional cognitivism insofar as they stress the importance of body, world, and interaction for cognitive processing. It sketches the outlines of an overarching framework that reveals the differences, commonalities, and interdependencies between the various claims and positions of second-generation cognitive science, and identifies a number of apparently unresolved conceptual and ontological issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    If computation is defined as the processing of representations, then there can of course be “no computation without representation” (Fodor 1975, p. 34)—which famously allowed Fodor to argue that every psychologically plausible model of the mind must posit internal representations. However, in contrast to this “semantic approach” to computation (Piccinini 2012), the notion of computation employed in many areas of cognitive science does not presuppose the notion of representation (see, e.g., Milkowski 2013, ch. 4; Piccinini 2008).

  2. 2.

    “Situated cognition” is used here as an umbrella term for any departure from traditional approaches that stresses the role of body, environment, and/or the interaction of brain, body, and environment (e.g., Robbins and Aydede 2009). Others use the term “situated” as a label for what is called “embedded” (e.g., Shapiro 2010) or “extended” (e.g., Wilson and Clark 2009) below, and instead “embodied” as the more general term (e.g., Shapiro 2011, 2012; Wilson 2002). Nothing of philosophical substance hinges on this terminological decision.

  3. 3.

    The idea that cognition is embodied (see note 2), it has recently been said, is the “most exciting idea in cognitive science right now” (Wilson and Golonka 2013, p. 1) and “has become an industry” (Alsmith and de Vignemont 2012, p. 1), making it “the new paradigm” (Davis et al. 2012, p. 786) and the “mainstream” (Stapleton 2013, p. 2) in cognitive science.

  4. 4.

    One limitation of the existing discussions, for instance, is that enactivism and its relation to other situated approaches are usually not taken into account (e.g., Shapiro 2011, 2012). Another problem is that the focus is too often on a single approach (e.g., Alsmith and de Vignemont 2012; Wilson and Foglia 2011; Wilson and Golonka 2013) or the comparison of two approaches (e.g., Clark 2008a; Kiverstein and Clark 2009; Rowlands 2009a; Wheeler 2011), but no attempt at developing an overarching framework is made. Moreover, little or no attention is usually paid to the fact that the debate between computationalists/representationalists and anti-computationalists/anti-representationalists about the what-question on the one hand and the debate between intracranialists and the various kinds of extracranialists about the where-question on the other are largely orthogonal.

  5. 5.

    After all, if cognition is computation over mental representations, then where could cognitive processing take place, if not in the brain? In fact, it seems that the idea that cognition is computation over representations, together with the conviction that the relevant representations are only neuronally implemented (see, e.g., Adams and Aizawa 2008), is the only plausible reason for intracranialism. It is thus hardly surprising that extracranialism became popular precisely when people started to argue that cognition is not computation at all (e.g., van Gelder 1995) or at least a kind of wide (Wilson 1994) or distributed (Hutchins 1995) computation not restricted to internal representations.

  6. 6.

    I have offered an earlier version of the account below in Walter (2010), Rowlands (2010) develops a similar taxonomy.

  7. 7.

    The appeal to mere causal dependence is far more widespread; for the evolutionary view see for instance Rowlands (2010, p. 55). See also Sterelny (2010) and Schulz (2013).

  8. 8.

    Strictly speaking, constitution is of course also a kind of dependence. For ease of exposition, however, it is customary to stick to the constitution/dependence-distinction, keeping in mind that “dependence” is understood in the narrow sense of a diachronous non-constitutional relationship between objects, processes etc. not related as parts and wholes.

  9. 9.

    As Shapiro (2013, p. 84) aptly puts it: “if anything might be said to capture the spirit of Embodied Cognition, it would be the slogan that brains ain’t enough.”

  10. 10.

    Prinz adds that a mental capacity can also be embodied in the sense that it “depend[s] on mental representations or processes that relate to the body” (2009, p. 420). As said above, the mere fact that abstract cognitive processes depend upon sensory-motor representations does not seem to make them embodied in any interesting sense. However, if, as Alsmith and de Vignemont (2012) suggest, at least some bodily format representations turn out to be so closely dependent upon the extracranial body that their involvement in a cognitive processes means that the extracranial body itself is involved (so that a brain in vat could not have the representations in question), then the “reuse” approaches to embodiment may fall into this category as well.

  11. 11.

    While Noë’s work on visual perception is often associated with enactivism (see below), it eventually boils down to an embodied and embedded sensory-motor account of perceptual content; it is neither intended as an account of cognition per se, as enactivism is, nor does it subscribe to the more radical metaphysical claims of enactivism sketched below (see Rowlands 2010, pp. 70–82).

  12. 12.

    See also Wheeler’s (2010) distinction between “vital materiality” (the claim that the body makes a special and non-substitutable contribution to cognition) and “implementational materiality” (the claim that the body is merely one implementation among others).

  13. 13.

    For the view that the “cultural-cognitive ecosystems” within which human cognition is embedded have no center from which cognition can extend, see also Hutchins (2014).

    Wilson’s (2004, 2005) social manifestation thesis maintains that although some cognitive processes require that their bearer be a member of appropriately organized and technologically equipped social collectives, collectives themselves are not bearers of cognitive processes. However, a bill is not passed by one senator embedded in a collective of senators, but by the senate as whole, and while it is true that the blind rage of a lynch mob or a mass riot is possible only in the context of the mob or the mass, the rage itself, emerging as it does from the dynamical, top-down influenced interplay among the members, is not a feature of any single member, but of the collective.

  14. 14.

    Enactivism is a broad church indeed (e.g., Stewart et al. 2010; Torrance 2005), and the label “enactivism” is sometimes also used for approaches that do not subscribe to the more radical metaphysical claims of Varela-style enactivism, for instance for sensory-motor accounts of perception (e.g., Noë 2004; see note 11), neurophenomenological approaches (e.g., Lutz and Thompson 2003) or certain accounts of emotions (e.g., Colombetti 2013).

  15. 15.

    As in the case of distributed cognition, it is not clear whether the enactivist intends to make a constitution- or a dependence-claim. Yet, her rejection of the locational question as misleading or senseless (see below) seems to rule out a constitution-claim, given that arguably a macroentity (object, process etc.) is located wherever its microconstituents are located.

  16. 16.

    For a detailed discussion of the relationship between enactivism and extended approaches, see Rowlands (2009a) and Wheeler (2010).

  17. 17.

    See, for instance, Merleau-Ponty, on whose work enactivism builds: “My body is the common texture of all objects and is, at least with regard to the perceived world, the general instrument of my ‘understanding.’ … My body gives a sense not only to the natural object, but moreover to cultural objects such as words” (1945/2012, p. 244).

  18. 18.

    The “locational” delineation problem is a problem of compatibility and incompatibility, not one of mere incommensurability, i.e., the threat is that dependence-based situated approaches turn out to be compatible with (cognitivist) intracranialism, not just not incompatible.

  19. 19.

    By way of illustration, consider a similar phenomenon from the philosophy of emotions: Some accounts of emotions regard neurophysiological and motor aspects as components, i.e., parts, of emotions (e.g., Scherer 2005). In contrast, others insist that one’s blushing and one’s grinding one’s teeth are caused by one’s shame and anger, respectively, but not a part of them. This dispute is also not going to be settled on temporal grounds because neither party is going to accept an operationalization of emotions incompatible with its prior ontological commitments.

  20. 20.

    Of course, situated approaches can always ensure an incompatibility with traditional cognitivism tout court by adopting an anti-computational/anti-representational stance.

  21. 21.

    Of course, if we had independent grounds for accepting a certain “mark of the cognitive” (e.g., Adams and Aizawa 2001, 2008), then the temporal and locational bounds of cognitive processes could be settled (e.g., Rowlands 2009b). This is correct, but it merely shifts the problem, for the different parties will of course not agree on a common mark of the cognitive.

  22. 22.

    My hunch is that if a criterion along these lines turns out to be viable, it will favor the dependence, not the constitution positions, but this question cannot be settled in this paper.

  23. 23.

    Recall (see section 2) that Clark (2008a, p. 43) takes “embodiment” to mean that “the presence of a humanlike mind depends quite directly upon the possession of a humanlike body” (emphasis S.W.). Unfortunately, he does not say what the directness in question consists in, but it may be that it is the reason for the supposed incompatibility with intracranialism.

  24. 24.

    For a discussion of such environmentally structured remedies for procrastination, as well as the idea of “extended will” related to it, see Heath and Anderson (2010).

  25. 25.

    See Clark’s “Principle of Ecological Assembly” according to which an agent “tends to recruit, on the spot, whatever mix of problem-solving resources will yield an acceptable result with a minimum effort” (2008b, p. 13). Note that within a concrete situation novel cases may also involve an active structuring; the point is that the agent did not have to (and could not) actively structure the situation beforehand—which is exactly why novel cases require creativity.

References

  1. Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2001. The bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology 14: 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2008. The bounds of cognition. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2010. Why the mind is still in the head. In Extended cognition, ed. R. Menary, 67–80. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aizawa, K. 2010. The coupling-constitution fallacy revisited. Cognitive Systems Research 11: 332–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alsmith, A., and F. de Vignemont. 2012. Embodying the mind and representing the body. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson, M. 2007. Massive redeployment, exaptation, and the functional integration of cognitive operations. Synthese 159: 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ballard, D., M. Hayhoe, P. Pook, and R. Rao. 1997. Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20: 723–767.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barker, M. 2010. From cognition’s location to the epistemology of its nature. Cognitive Systems Research 11: 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barnier, A., J. Sutton, C. Harris, and R. Wilson. 2008. A conceptual and empirical framework for the social distribution of cognition. Cognitive Systems Research 9: 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrett, L. 2011. Beyond the brain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Borghi, A., C. Scorolli, D. Caligiore, G. Baldassarre, and L. Tummolini. 2013. The embodied mind extended. Frontiers in Psychology 4(214): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brooks, R. 1991. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47: 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chandrasekharan, S., and N. Nersessian. 2011. Building cognition: the construction of external representations for discovery. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 33: 267–272.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chatterjee, A. 2010. Disembodying cognition. Language and Cognition 2: 79–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chemero, A. 2009. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clark, A. 2008a. Pressing the flesh: a tension in the study of the embodied, embedded mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76: 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clark, A. 2008b. Supersizing the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58: 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Colombetti, G. 2013. The feeling body: affective science meets the enactive mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cowley, S., and F. Vallée-Tourangeau. 2013. Cognition beyond the brain. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Craver, C. 2007. Explaining the brain. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Davis, J., A. Benforado, E. Esrock, A. Turner, R. Dalton, L. van Noorden, and M. Leman. 2012. Four applications of embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 4: 786–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dehaene, S. 2009. Reading in the brain. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  24. De Jaegher, H., and E. Di Paolo. 2007. Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6: 485–507.

    Google Scholar 

  25. De Jaegher, H., E. Di Paolo, and S. Gallagher. 2010. Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dempsey, L., and I. Shani. 2012. Stressing the flesh: in defense of strong embodiment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86: 590–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dennett, D. 2000. Making tools for thinking. In Metarepresentations, ed. D. Sperber, 17–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Di Paolo, E. 2009. Extended life. Topoi 28: 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Di Paolo, E., M. Rohde, and H. De Jaegher. 2010. Horizons for the enactive mind. In Enaction, ed. J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, and E. Di Paolo, 33–88. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dodig-Crnkovic, G., and R. Giovagnoli. 2013. Computing nature. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fodor, J. 1975. The language of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fodor, J. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gallese, V. 2008. Mirror neurons and the social nature of language. Social Neuroscience 3: 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gibson, J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goldin-Meadow, S. 1999. The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3: 9–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldin-Meadow, S., and S. Wagner. 2005. How our hands help us learn. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goldman, A. 2013. A moderate approach to embodied cognitive science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3: 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldman, A., and F. de Vignemont. 2009. Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13: 154–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Haugeland, J. 1995. Mind embodied and embedded. Acta Philosophica Fennica 58: 233–267.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Heath, J., and J. Anderson. 2010. Procrastination and the extended will. In The thief of time, ed. C. Andreou and M. White, 233–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hurley, S. 2001. Perception and action: alternative views. Synthese 129: 3–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hurley, S. 2008. The shared circuits model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 1–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hutchins, E. 2014. Human cognition: culturally pervasive, not extended. Philosophical Psychology. doi:10.1080/09515089.2013.830548.

  45. Hutto, D., and E. Myin. 2013. Radicalizing enactivism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kirsh, D., and P. Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18: 513–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kiverstein, J., and A. Clark. 2009. Introduction: mind embodied, embedded, enacted. Topoi 28: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Logan, R. 2007. The extended mind: the emergence of language, the human mind, and culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lutz, A., and E. Thompson. 2003. Neurophenomenology. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10(9–10): 31–52.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2012). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.

  52. Meteyard, L., S. Cuadrado, B. Bahrami, and G. Vigliocco. 2012. Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex 48: 788–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Milkowski, M. 2013. Explaining the computational mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Müller-Schloer, C., H. Schmeck, and T. Ungerer. 2011. Organic computing. Basel: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pfeifer, R., and J. Bongard. 2007. How the body shapes the way we think. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Piccinini, G. 2008. Computation without representation. Philosophical Studies 137: 205–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Piccinini, G. 2012. Computationalism. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science, ed. R. Samuels, E. Margolis, and S. Stich, 222–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Prinz, J. 2009. Is consciousness embodied? In The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, ed. P. Robbins and M. Aydede, 419–437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Robbins, P., and M. Aydede. 2009. The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rohde, M. 2010. Enaction, embodiment, evolutionary robotics. Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rowlands, M. 2009a. Enactivism and the extended mind. Topoi 28: 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rowlands, M. 2009b. Extended cognition and the mark of the cognitive. Philosophical Psychology 22: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rowlands, M. 2010. The new science of the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rupert, R. 2004. Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy 101: 389–428.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rupert, R. 2009. Cognitive systems and the extended mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Scherer, K. 2005. What are emotions? and how can they be measured? Social Science Information 44: 695–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schulz, A. 2013. Overextension: the extended mind and arguments from evolutionary biology. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3: 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Shapiro, L. 2004. The mind incarnate. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Shapiro, L. 2010. James Bond and the barking dog: evolution and extended cognition. Philosophy of Science 77: 400–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shapiro, L. 2011. Embodied cognition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shapiro, L. 2012. Embodied cognition. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science, ed. R. Samuels, E. Margolis, and S. Stich, 118–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Shapiro, L. 2013. When is cognition embodied? In U. Kriegel (Ed.), Current Controversies in Philosophy of Mind (pp. 73–90). London: Routledge.

  74. Sprevak, M. 2010. Inference to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Stapleton, M. 2013. Steps to a “Properly Embodied” cognitive science. Cognitive Systems Research 22–23: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sterelny, K. 2010. Minds: extended or scaffolded? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9: 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stewart, J., O. Gapenne, and E. Di Paolo. 2010. Enaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Thelen, E., G. Schöner, C. Scheier, and L. Smith. 2001. The dynamics of embodiment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 1–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Thelen, E., and L. Smith. 1994. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Thompson, E., and M. Stapleton. 2009. Making sense of sense-making. Topoi 28: 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Thompson, E., and F. Varela. 2001. Radical embodiment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5: 418–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Torrance, S. 2005. In search of the enactive. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4: 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. van Gelder, T. 1995. What might cognition be, if not computation? Journal of Philosophy 91: 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. van Gelder, T. 1998. The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 615–628.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Varela, F., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Walter, S. 2010. Locked-in syndrome, BCI, and a confusion about embodied, embedded, extended, and enacted cognition. Neuroethics 3: 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Walter, S., and L. Kästner. 2012. The where and what of cognition: The untenability of cognitive agnosticism and the motley crew argument. Cognitive Systems Research 13: 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ward, D., and M. Stapleton. 2012. Es are good: Cognition as enacted, embodied, embedded, affective and extended. In Consciousness in interaction, ed. F. Paglieri and C. Castelfranchi, 89–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  89. Wehner, R., and M. Müller. 2006. The significance of direct sunlight and polarized skylight in the ant’s celestial system of navigation. Proccedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103: 12575–12579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Weiskopf, D. 2008. Patrolling the mind’s boundaries. Erkenntnis 68: 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Wheeler, M. 2005. Reconstructing the cognitive world. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Wheeler, M. 2010. Minds, things, and materiality. In The cognitive life of things, ed. L. Malafouris and C. Renfrew, 29–38. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wheeler, M. 2011. Embodied cognition and the extended mind. In The continuum companion to the philosophy of mind, ed. J. Garvey, 220–238. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Wilson, A., and S. Golonka. 2013. Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Cognitive Science 4(58): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Wilson, M. 2002. Six views on embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9: 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wilson, R. 1994. Wide computationalism. Mind 103: 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wilson, R. 2004. Boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Wilson, R. 2005. Collective memory, group minds, and the extended mind thesis. Cognitive Processing 6: 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wilson, R., and A. Clark. 2009. How to situate cognition. In The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, ed. P. Robbins and M. Aydede, 55–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Wilson, R., & Foglia, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. In: E. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

  101. Woodward, J. 2003. Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Walter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walter, S. Situated Cognition: A Field Guide to Some Open Conceptual and Ontological Issues. Rev.Phil.Psych. 5, 241–263 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0167-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive Process
  • Cognitive Processing
  • Ontological Commitment
  • Situate Cognition
  • Causal Dependence