Thinking with the Body (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Mind-Body Problem: A Critical Discussion
The Mind-Body Problem: A Critical Discussion, 2020
The mind-body problem is a philosophical dilemma that concerns the relationship between the mind and body of humans (Garcia-Albea, 2018). This question arises when the mind is viewed as a metaphysical construct, separate from the body in its entirety (Descartes, 1953). Theories ranging from the early Greeks philosophers to modern day neuroscientists aim to show how the mind works in tandem with the physical body and if they are indeed separate entities. This mind-body problem was first defined by Descartes (1953), as the relationship between the immaterial, thinking mind and the material, non-thinking and reactionary body. However, this concept was debated long before Descartes’s (1953) theory, with the likes of Aristotle and Plato both proposing that the mind and body are comprised of two entirely separate entities. This thesis will discuss the development of the mind-body problem as well as its comparison to other theories and disciplines, such as the neuroscientific approach and functionalism (Brysbaert & Rastle, 2013).
Pulverizing the Monopoly of Mind: Three Roles of the Body in Cognition
Tattva - Journal of Philosophy
For many decades, cognition has been viewed as a computational process in the brain. For cognition, the brain, body and the interaction with the environment are important. Conventional views are inclined towards the existence of discrete and internal representations realised by highly specific mechanisms in the brain. The Embodied approach challenges this view and accepts the evolution of cognitive abilities. There is a shift in focus from the belief that the brain is solely responsible for cognition to the thought that the body is somehow deeply integrated into cognition. However, it does not deny the central position of the brain in the process of cognition but opens the doors for other factors for integration. At the basic level, there are three ways in which an agent’s body can be utilised for the cognitive process. An agent’s body may help to generate, operate and distribute the cognitive processes. As a result, this approach tries to diminish the monopoly of the brain by taki...
Brain-Body-Life Towards a panpsychist theory of embodied cognition
This paper develops a Panpsychist theory of embodied cognition. As a monist theory, its aim is to present a non-reductive Materialist ontology of mind as an alternative to Dualist conceptions of mind and cognition (Substance Dualism and Propriety Dualism) regarding the mind-body and the mindmind problems.
Conscious Embodiment, EMBODIED CONSCIOUSNESS Mind, Consciousness and Body
We do not know how to think with or about these notions and others such as reality, perception, space, time, etc… ABSTRACT In the following I will deal with the umbrella notions of mind, consciousness and body. The contents is relevant, but of greater importance is the manner or method in which I deal with these notions. I first present as an illustration of my approach or method, how I have dealt with the notions of intuition and intuiting. One of the points I am trying to make is that: we do not know how to think about many things, for example mind, consciousness, awareness, body, intuition, etc. Therefore, I attempt to explore a number of things that we must investigate and deal with before we use these and other notions, as if they are clearly defined terms, before we try to use them to think and to think about anything, especially many levelled and multi- dimensional issues and problems such as the workings of ‘the mind, the body, intuition, consciousness and the relationship, if there are any, between these and other things. Then I suggest the initial steps for a few very basic requirements before the exploration of a theory of embodied, living, conscious tissues and a model for embodied (self-) consciousness research. CONTENTS Intuition 4 Mind 9 Consciousness 19 Embodied Consciousness 44 Human Body 52 Theory 61 Proposal for a Model of Embodied Consciousness Research 86 Self or Reflective Consciousness 90
How do our mental states relate to the physical states of our body? Do our mental states arise from the physical processes of our body? Is it really the case that some of our actions are caused by our mental states such as our intentions and desires? Is there a significant difference between a physical state causing another physical state say the cutting of our skin causing the bleeding of our skin, and a mental state causing a physical state say desiring to raise our arm causing the rising of our arm? If we believe that there are such things as mental states that are over and above the physical states of our body then it is important to know how they relate to the physical states of our body. The investigation of the various philosophical issues connected to the relation between mind and body, or between our mental states (and processes) and bodily states (and processes), is the primary concern of what has been called in philosophy as the mind-body problem. The mind-body problem, as can be gleaned from the discussions of philosophers on this problem, has the following two types. The first concerns the ontological (or existential) relation between mind and body, where the inquiry focuses on how the existence of the mental states relates to the existence of bodily states-or the physical states of the body. I shall call this type of mind-body problem as the ontological mind-body problem. The second one, on the other hand, concerns the causal relation between mental states and bodily states, where the inquiry focuses on whether there is a causal relation between these two types of states, and if there is, on what type of causal relation is at work therein. I shall call this type of mind-body problem as the causal mind-body problem. In this essay, I examine the various solutions proposed by philosophers to the mind-body problem both in its ontological and causal form.
Within contemporary philosophy of mind, to say that mind, self, and cognition are embodied is to claim that mental phenomena are constituted not only by what’s going on inside a person’s brain, but depend intimately on the person’s body beyond the brain and, more inclusively, the world in which the person is situated. The goal of this seminar is to understand the significance of this claim, and to articulate the nature of the suggested dependence relation. Acting as a dis-embodied foil for our discussion will be a narrowly circumscribed mechanistic approach to cognition which forms the core of classical cognitive science. According to this approach, thinking is a form of computation operating on symbolic representations that are physically realized solely inside the brain. Despite its commitment to physicalism, classical cognitive science epitomizes a broadly Cartesian vision of cognition as an inner, solitary, ratiocinative, detached, and general-purpose mechanism that is wedged between action and perception, and can be studied without regard to one’s body and environment. Over the past three decades, the once-dominant cognitivist paradigm has increasingly come under attack by a loosely-knit family of research programs emphasizing the embodied, embedded, extended, and/or enactive character of cognition (“4E-cognition”). Advocates of 4E-cognition span a large network of research communities (including philosophy, psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, robotics, sociology, anthropology, science studies, gender studies, and informatics), taking their cues from disparate sources such as Continental philosophy (esp. Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Wittgenstein), American Pragmatism (esp. James, Dewey, and Mead), pioneers in psychology (from Vygotsky to Gibson) and biology (from Uexküll to Varela). (At this point, one is tempted to cite Fodor’s quip that in intellectual history, everything happens twice: first as philosophy and then as cognitive science). Because of the sheer diversity of sources and evidence on which proponents of 4E-cognition have drawn, it is often difficult to determine whether they belong to one church or many. The main task in our seminar will thus be to compare and contrast the intellectual enterprises which are grouped together under the banner of 4E-cognition. In what ways do they depart from the Cartesian paradigm, and how exactly does each of them conceive of the role which embodiment and situatedness play for mind and cognition? How do they differ in their ontological commitments and methodological practices? Are there any unifying themes that go beyond a shared opposition to traditional “dis-embodied” approaches; and if so, what are they? What is the relationship between philosophical and scientific approaches to 4E-cognition more generally? Finally, how does all of this matter for our understanding of what kinds of beings we are?