TY - JOUR
T1 - Attacking The Bounds of Cognition
AU - Menary, R.
N1 - Original article can be found at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713441835 Copyright Informa / Taylor and Francis Group. DOI: 10.1080/09515080600690557 [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA]
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - Recently internalists have mounted a counter-attack on the attempt to redefine the bounds of cognition. The counter-attack is aimed at a radical project which I call “cognitive integration,” which is the view that internal and external vehicles and processes are integrated into a whole. Cognitive integration can be defended against the internalist counter arguments of Adams and Aizawa (A&A) and Rupert. The disagreement between internalists and integrationists is whether the manipulation of external vehicles constitutes a cognitive process. Integrationists think that they do, typically for reasons to do with the close coordination and causal interplay between internal and external processes. The internalist criticisms of the manipulation thesis fail because they misconstrue the nature of manipulation, ignore the hybrid nature of cognition, and take the manipulation thesis to be dependent upon a weak parity principle.
AB - Recently internalists have mounted a counter-attack on the attempt to redefine the bounds of cognition. The counter-attack is aimed at a radical project which I call “cognitive integration,” which is the view that internal and external vehicles and processes are integrated into a whole. Cognitive integration can be defended against the internalist counter arguments of Adams and Aizawa (A&A) and Rupert. The disagreement between internalists and integrationists is whether the manipulation of external vehicles constitutes a cognitive process. Integrationists think that they do, typically for reasons to do with the close coordination and causal interplay between internal and external processes. The internalist criticisms of the manipulation thesis fail because they misconstrue the nature of manipulation, ignore the hybrid nature of cognition, and take the manipulation thesis to be dependent upon a weak parity principle.
U2 - 10.1080/09515080600690557
DO - 10.1080/09515080600690557
M3 - Article
SN - 0951-5089
VL - 19
SP - 329
EP - 344
JO - Philosophical Psychology
JF - Philosophical Psychology
IS - 3
ER -