The foundational crisis of cognitive science: challenging the emergentist challenge

Autores

  • Jean-Michel Roy Center for the Epistemology of Cognitive Science, University of Lyon, Ecole Normale Supérieure

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7213/rfa.v22i30.2224

Resumo

The following pages contend that, in spite of its intensive development, contemporary cognitive science has recently entered a phase of fairly acute uncertainty and confusion regarding some of its most essential foundations. They emphasize two aspects of this foundational crisis, specifically vindicating the existence of a crisis of naturalism and of a crisis of representationalism. Like any foundational crisis, this situation constitutes a serious threat to the significance of the empirical achievements of cognitive science. A threat calling for renewed efforts to provide it with secure foundations that can only be obtained through acloser collaboration between empirical and foundational investigations, or, more concretely, between cognitive scientists and philosophers. They also outline a general strategy to address this threat, and illustrate itabout one aspect of particular importance of the naturalist crisis, namely the emergentist challenge to the orthodoxy of non reductive functionalism. They argue for the rejection of one version of this emergentist challenge,and they lay out a minimal condition that any other version of emergentism must meet. It is still unclear whether this condition is yet satisfactorily met by some version, and in particular by the sort of emergentism associated with the notion of dynamical system. Clarifyingthis issue should accordingly be seen as a top priority on the agenda of cognitive philosophy.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

ALEXANDER, S. Space, time and deity. London: Macmillan, 1920.

ALLEN, C.; BERKOFF, M. Cognitive ethology and the intentionality of animal behavior. Mind & Language, v. 10, p. 313-328, 1995.

BAIN, A. Logic. London: Longmans, 1870.

BECHTEL, W.; RICHARDSON, R. Emergent phenomena and complex systems. In: BECKERMANN, A.; FLOHR, H.; KIM, J. (Ed.). Emergence or reduction? essays on the prospect of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. p. 257-288.

BECKERMANN, A. The historical facet of emergence. In: BECKERMANN, A.; FLOHR, H.; KIM, J. (Ed.). Emergence or reduction? essays on the prospect of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. p. 102.

BECKERMANN, A.; FLOHR, H.; KIM, J. Emergence or reduction? essays on the prospect of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.

BICKLE, J. Psychoneural reduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

BLOCK, N. Troubles with functionalism. Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology, v. 2, p. 128-134, 1978.

BROAD, C. D. The mind and its place in Nature. New York: Harcout, Brace & Company, 1925.

BROOKS, R. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, v. 47, p. 67-90, 1991.

BUNGE, M.; ARDILA, R. Philosophy of psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.

BUNGE, M. A. The mind-body problem: a psychobiological approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.

CASATI, R. Emergence and explanation. In: CASATI, R. (Ed.). Intellectica. 1997;

CLARK, A. Being there: putting brain, body and world together. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.

GALLESE, V. The ‘shared manifold’ hypothesis: from mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, v. 8, n. 5/7, p. 33-50, 2001.

HEMPEL, C.; OPPENHEIM, P. Studies in the logic of explanation. In: HEMPEL, C. (Ed.). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press, [1948] 1965. p. 245-296.

HENLE, P. The status of emergence. Journal of Philosophy, v. 39, n. 18, p. 486-493, 1942.

JACKSON, F.; PETTIT, P. Program explanation: a general perspective. Analysis, v. 50, n. 2, p. 107-117, 1990.

KIM, J. Downward causation. In: BECKERMANN, A.; FLOHR, H.; KIM, J. (Ed.). Emergence or reduction? essays on the prospect of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. p. 49-93.

______. The non reductivist’s trouble with mental causation. In: KIM, J. Supervenience and mind: selected philosophical essays. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. p. 336-357.

______. Mind in a physical world: an essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

______. Philosophy of mind. Boulder: Westview Press, 2006.

LAKOFF, G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

LEWES, G. H. Problems of life and mind. London: Kegan Paul, 1875.

LEWIS, D. Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, v. 50, p. 249-258, 1972.

McLAUGHLIN, B. P. The rise and fall of british emergentism. In: BECKERMANN, A.; FLOHR, H.; KIM, J. (Ed.). Emergence or reduction: essays on the prospects of nonreductive physicalism. Paris: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. p. 49-93.

MILL, J. S. A system of logic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, [1843] 1973.

MORGAN, L. Emergent evolution. London: Williams & Norgate, 1923.

NAGEL, E. The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1961.

OPPENHEIM, P.; PUTNAM, H. Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: FEIGL, S.; SCRIVEN, M.; MAXWELL, G. (Ed.). Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958. p. 3-27.

PAP, A. The concept of absolute emergence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, v. 2, p. 302-311, 1951.

PEPPER, S. Emergence. Journal of Philosophy, v. 23, p. 241-245, 1926;

PERNER, J. Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1991;

POPPER, K.; ECCLES, J. C. The self and the brain. Berlin: Springer, 1977.

ROY, J.-M. Conception émergentiste du mental et explication causale. In: DURAND, M.-J. (Ed.). Des lois de la pensée au constructivisme: conceptions et modélisations de l’acte de connaître. Paris: Intellectica, 2004.

RUSSELL, B. The principles of mathematics. London: Norton, [1903] 1980.

SEARLE, J. R. Intentionality, an essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

SMITH, D.; THOMASSON, A. Phenomenology and philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

SPERRY, R.W. Mind-Brain interaction. Neuroscience, v. 6, p. 109-113, 1980.

STACE, W. Novelty, indeterminism and emergence. Philosophical Review, v. 48, n. 3, p. 296-310, 1939.

STEPHAN, A. Emergence: a systematic view of its historical facets. In:

BECKERMANN, A.; FLOHR, H.; KIM, J. (Ed.). Emergence or reduction? essays on the prospect of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. p. 119-139.

STICH, S. P. From folk psychology to cognitive science: the case against belief. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.

THELEN, E.; SMITH, L. B. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.

THOMPSON, E. Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science, v. 5, n. 10, p. 418-425, 2001.

Van GELDER, T. Defending the dynamical hypothesis. In: TSCHACHER, W.; DAUWALDER, J.-P. (Ed.). Dynamics, synergetics, autonomous agents: nonlinear systems approaches to cognitive psychology and cognitive science. Singapore: World Scientific, 1999. p. 241-255.

Van GULICK, R. Reduction, emergence and other recent opinions on the mind/body problem: a philosophic overview. Journal of Consciousness, v. 8, n. 9/10, p. 1-34, 2001.

VARELA, F. Autonomie et connaissance: essai sur le vivant. Paris: Seuil, 1980.

VARELA, F.; THOMPSON, E.; ROSCH, E. The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.

Downloads

Publicado

2010-05-04

Como Citar

Roy, J.-M. (2010). The foundational crisis of cognitive science: challenging the emergentist challenge. Revista De Filosofia Aurora, 22(30), 99–135. https://doi.org/10.7213/rfa.v22i30.2224