A twofold tale of one mind: revisiting REC's multi-storey story.
The Radical Enactive/Embodied view of Cognition, or REC, claims that all cognition is a matter of skilled performance. Yet REC also makes a distinction between basic and content-involving cognition, arguing that the development of basic to content-involving cognition involves a kink. It might seem t...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 198; no. 12; pp. 12175 - 12194 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Dec2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=152624535&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 152624535 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2021 vid: 198 iid: 12 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 152624535 10.1007/s11229-020-02857-z ppf: 12175 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 298KB tig: atl: A twofold tale of one mind: revisiting REC's multi-storey story. aug: au: Myin, Erik van den Herik, Jasper C. affil: Centre for Philosophical Psychology, Department of Philosophy, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands su: Animal cognition Cognition sug: subj: Animal cognition Cognition keyword: Content Radical enactivism Reflexivity Skill ab: The Radical Enactive/Embodied view of Cognition, or REC, claims that all cognition is a matter of skilled performance. Yet REC also makes a distinction between basic and content-involving cognition, arguing that the development of basic to content-involving cognition involves a kink. It might seem that this distinction leads to problematic gaps in REC's story. We address two such alleged gaps in this paper. First, we identify and reply to the concern that REC leads to an "interface problem", according to which REC has to account for the interaction of two minds co-present in the same cognitive activity. We emphasise how REC's view of content-involving cognition in terms of activities that require particular sociocultural practices can resolve these interface concerns. The second potential problematic gap is that REC creates an unjustified difference in kind between animal and human cognition. In response, we clarify and further explicate REC's notion of content, and argue that this notion allows REC to justifiably mark the distinction between basic and content-involving cognition as a difference in kind. We conclude by pointing out in what sense basic and content-involving cognitive activities are the same, yet different. They are the same because they are all forms of skilled performance, yet different as some forms of skilled performance are genuinely different from other forms. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|