Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T07:11:05.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

After the Philosophy of Mind: Replacing Scholasticism with Science*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Anthony Chemero  and
Michael Silberstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We provide a taxonomy of the two most important debates in the philosophy of the cognitive and neural sciences. The first debate is over methodological individualism: is the object of the cognitive and neural sciences the brain, the whole animal, or the animal—environment system? The second is over explanatory style: should explanation in cognitive and neural science be reductionist-mechanistic, interlevel mechanistic, or dynamical? After setting out the debates, we discuss the ways in which they are interconnected. Finally, we make some recommendations that we hope will help philosophers interested in the cognitive and neural sciences to avoid dead ends.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Colin Klein and Bill Bechtel for discussion of these issues.

References

Anderson, M. (2003), “Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide”, Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide 149:91–130.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (1998), “Representations and Cognitive Explanations: Assessing the Dynamicist's Challenge in Cognitive Science”, Representations and Cognitive Explanations: Assessing the Dynamicist's Challenge in Cognitive Science 22:295–318.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2002), “Decomposing the Brain: A Long Term Pursuit”, Decomposing the Brain: A Long Term Pursuit 3:229–242.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2005), “Mental Mechanisms: What Are the Operations?”, in Bara, B., Barsalou, L., and Bucciarelli, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 208–213.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Abrahamson, A. (2005), “Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative”, Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative 36:421–444.Google ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, W., and Richardson, R. C. (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beer, R. (1995), “Computational and Dynamical Languages for Autonomous Agents”, in Port, R. F. and Gelder, T. van (eds.), Mind as Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 121–147.Google Scholar
Beer, R. (1999), “Dynamical Approaches to Cognitive Science”, Dynamical Approaches to Cognitive Science 4:91–99.Google Scholar
Bickle, J. (2003), Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, R. (2008), “Downward Causation in Fluid Convection”, Downward Causation in Fluid Convection 160:229–248.Google Scholar
Bressler, S. L., and Kelso, J. A. S. (2001), “Cortical Coordination Dynamics and Cognition”, Cortical Coordination Dynamics and Cognition 5:26–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Brooks, R. (1991), “Intelligence without Representation”, Intelligence without Representation 47:139–159.Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2000), “Anti-representationalism and the Dynamical Stance”, Anti-representationalism and the Dynamical Stance 67:625–647.Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2001), “Dynamical Explanation and Mental Representation”, Dynamical Explanation and Mental Representation 5:140–141.Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2009), Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemero, A., and Heyser, C. (2005), “Object Exploration and the Problem with Reductionism”, Object Exploration and the Problem with Reductionism 147:403–423.Google Scholar
Chemero, A., and Silberstein, M. (2008), “Defending Extended Cognition,” in Sloutsky, V., Love, B., and McRae, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. (1989), A Neurocomputational Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997), Being There. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2003), Natural Born Cyborgs. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cosmelli, D., Lachaux, J.-P., and Thompson, E. (2007), “Neurodynamics of Consciousness”, in Zelazo, P. D., Moscovitch, M., and Thompson, E., (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 730–770.Google Scholar
Craver, C. (2005), “Beyond Reduction: Mechanisms, Multified Integration and the Unity of Neuroscience”, Beyond Reduction: Mechanisms, Multified Integration and the Unity of Neuroscience 36:373–395.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F., and Bechtel, W. (2007), “Top-Down Causation without Top-Down Causes”, Top-Down Causation without Top-Down Causes 22:547–563.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. (1997), The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1975), The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), “Connectionism and the Cognitive Architecture”, Connectionism and the Cognitive Architecture 28:3–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Freeman, W. (1999), How Brains Make Up Their Minds. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, W., and Skarda, C. (1990), “Representations: Who Needs Them?”, in McGaugh, J. L. et al. (eds.), Brain Organization and Memory Cells, Systems and Circuits. New York: Oxford University Press, 375–380.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Glennan, S. (2008), “Mechanisms”, in S. Psillos and M. Curd (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Grush, R. (1997), “The Architecture of Representation”, The Architecture of Representation 10:5–24.Google Scholar
Grush, R. (2004), “The Emulation Theory of Representation: Motor Control, Imagery, and Perception”, The Emulation Theory of Representation: Motor Control, Imagery, and Perception 27:377–442.Google ScholarPubMed
Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hineline, P. (2006), “Multiple Scales of Process, and the Principle of Adduction”, in Ribes-Inesta, E. and Burgos, J. E. (eds.), Knowledge, Cognition, and Behavior. Guadalajara: University of Guadalajara Press, Chapter 11.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keijzer, F. (2001), Representation and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, S. (1993), In the Wake of Chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelso, J. (1995), Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J., and Engstrom, D. (2006), The Complementary Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S., Fuchs, A., Holroyd, T., Lancaster, R., Cheyne, D., and Weinberg, H. (1998), “Dynamic Cortical Activity in the Human Brain Reveals Motor Equivalence”, Dynamic Cortical Activity in the Human Brain Reveals Motor Equivalence 23:814–818.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D., and Maglio, P. (1994), “On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action”, On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action 18:513–549.Google Scholar
Kugler, P. N., Kelso, J. A. S., and Turvey, M. T. (1980), “Coordinative Structures as Dissipative Structures: I. Theoretical Lines of Convergence”, in Stelmach, G.E. and Requin, J. (eds.), Tutorials in Motor Behavior. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kugler, P., and Turvey, M. (1987), Information, Natural Law, and the Self-Assembly of Rhythmic Movement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. (2000), The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Machamer, P., Darden, L., and Craver, C. (2000), “Thinking about Mechanisms”, Thinking about Mechanisms 67:1–25.Google Scholar
Markman, A., and Dietrich, E. (2000), “In Defense of Representation”, In Defense of Representation 4:470–475.Google Scholar
McClamrock, R. (1995), Existential Cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Noë, A. (2005), Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oullier, O., et al. (2005), “Spontaneous Interpersonal Synchronization”, in Peham, C., Schöllhorn, W. I., and Verwey, W. (eds.), European Workshop on Movement Sciences: Mechanics-Physiology-Psychology. Cologne: Sportverlag, 34–35.Google Scholar
Port, R., and Gelder, T. van (1995), Mind as Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1966), The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Ramsey, W. (1997), “Do Connectionist Representations Earn Their Explanatory Keep?”, Do Connectionist Representations Earn Their Explanatory Keep? 12:34–66.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D., et al. (1986), “Schemata and Sequential Thought Processes in PDP Models”, in D. Rumelhart, J. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2, Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 7–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. C., Carello, C., and Turvey, M. T. (1990), “Phase Transitions and Critical Fluctuations in the Visual Coordination of Rhythmic Movements between People”, Phase Transitions and Critical Fluctuations in the Visual Coordination of Rhythmic Movements between People 16:227–247.Google ScholarPubMed
Silberstein, M. (1999), “The Search for Ontological Emergence”, The Search for Ontological Emergence 49:182–200.Google Scholar
Silberstein, M. (2002), “Reduction, Emergence, and Explanation”, in Machamer, P. and Silberstein, M. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 80–107.Google Scholar
Skarda, C., and Freeman, W. (1987), “How the Brain Makes Chaos to Make Sense of the World”, How the Brain Makes Chaos to Make Sense of the World 10:161–195.Google Scholar
Thelen, E. (1995), “Time-Scale Dynamics and the Development of Embodied Cognition”, in Port, R. F. and Gelder, Timothy van (eds.), Mind as Motion: Exploration in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 69–100.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., and Smith, L. (1993), A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2007), Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, E., and Varela, F.. (2001), “Radical Embodiment: Neural Dynamics and Consciousness”, Radical Embodiment: Neural Dynamics and Consciousness 5:418–425.Google ScholarPubMed
van Gelder, T. (1995), “What Might Cognition Be If Not Computation?”, What Might Cognition Be If Not Computation? 91:345–381.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J. (1979), Principles of Biological Autonomy. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1991), The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M. (2005a), “Friends Reunited? Evolutionary Robotics and Representational Explanation”, Friends Reunited? Evolutionary Robotics and Representational Explanation 11:215–232.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. (2005b), Reconstructing the Cognitive World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. (2004), Boundaries of the Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, R., and Clark, A. (2008), “How to Situate Cognition: Letting Nature Take Its Course”, in Aydede, M. and Robbins, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar