Zawodne heurystyki a ocena tradycji badawczych. Przypadek poznania ucieleśnionego
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/RF.2019.031Słowa kluczowe
ucieleśnione poznanie, tradycje badawcze, unifikacja reprezentacyjnaAbstrakt
Celem artykułu jest uzasadnienie tezy, że ucieleśnione poznanie, jak wiele innych tradycji badawczych w kognitywistyce, dostarcza zbioru zawodnych heurystyk badawczych, a nie ogólnych zasad obowiązujących we wszelkiego rodzaju procesach poznawczych. Teza ta jest zilustrowana przykładem polemiki Kennetha Aizawy z enaktywnymi z ucieleśnionymi koncepcjami widzenia. Podczas gdy argumentacja Aizawy jest poprawna materialnie w odniesieniu do mocnej intepretacji koncepcji enaktywnej, nie podważa ona ucieleśnionego poznania, gdyż wymierzona jest jedynie w zawodną heurystykę. Heurystyki takie mogą być pomocne w rozwijaniu modeli poznania w sposób interdyscyplinarny. Krótko opisuję problem, czy ta zawodność wystawia ucieleśnione poznanie na zarzut niesprawdzalności i pseudonaukowości. Podkreślam też, że historyczne podejście do tej tradycji badawczej sugeruje, iż nie może ona stać się wielką unifikacyjną teorią poznania.
Bibliografia
Aizawa Kenneth. 2018. “Is Perceiving Bodily Action?” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9592-9.
Aizawa Kenneth. 2007.“Understanding the Embodiment of Perception”. The Journal of Philosophy 104. No. 1. 5–25.
Allen Colin, Marc Bekoff. 1995. “Biological Function, Adaptation, and Natural Design”. Philosophy of Science 62. No. 4. 609–622.
Anderson Michael L. 2014. After Phrenology. Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Anderson Michael L. 2010. “Neural Reuse: A Fundamental Organizational Principle of the Brain”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33. No. 4. 245–266; discussion 266–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000853.
Barsalou Lawrence W. 2008. “Grounded Cognition”. Annual Review of Psychology 59. 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
Buckner Randy L., Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna, Daniel L. Schacter. 2008. “The Brain’s Default Network: Anatomy, Function, and Relevance to Disease”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.011.
Chomsky Noam. 2010. “Rules and Representations”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3. No. 01. 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001515.
Christensen Wayne, Mark H. Bickhard. 2002. “The Process Dynamics of Normative Function”. The Monist 85. No. 1. 3–28.
Clark Andy, David J. Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind”. Analysis 58. No. 1. 7–19.
Cummins Robert. “Functional Analysis”. 1975. The Journal of Philosophy 72. No. 20. 741–765.
Fodor Jerry A. 1975. The Language of Thought. 1st ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Gibson James J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hove: Psychology Press.
Glenberg Arthur M., Michael P. Kaschak. 2002. “Grounding Language in Action”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9. No. 3. 558–565. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313.
Krohs Ulrich. 2009. “Functions as Based on a Concept of General Design”. Synthese 166. No. 1. 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9258-6.
Kyselo Miriam. 2013. “Locked-in Syndrome and BCI – Towards an Enactive Approach to the Self”. Neuroethics 6. No. 3. 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9104-x.
Lakatos Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965. Vol. 4 Vol. 4. Ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. 91–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14.
Lakoff George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laudan Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problem: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
Miłkowski Marcin. 2018. “Autopoiesis Nie Wywołała Rewolucji”. In Filozof w krainie umysłów. Profesorowi Andrzejowi Klawiterowi w darze. Ed. Grzegorz Króliczak, Krzysztof Łastowski, Łukasz Przybylski, Piotr Przybysz, and Mariusz Urbański, 217–27. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Nauk Społecznych UAM.
Miłkowski Marcin, Przemysław Nowakowski. Under review. Is Embodied Cognition a Unifying Perspective? Representational Unification and Research Traditions in Cognitive Science.
Millikan Ruth Garrett. 2002. “Biofunctions: Two Paradigms”. In Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. Ed. Andrew Ariew, Robert Cummins, and Mark Perlman. New York: Oxford University Press.
Noë Alva. 2004. Action in Perception. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Papesh Megan H. 2015. “Just Out of Reach: On the Reliability of the Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 144. No. 6. e116–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000125.
Piaget Jean. The Construction of Reality in the Child. 1954. Transl. Margaret Cook. New York: Basic Books.
Poletti Martina, Michele Rucci. 2016. “A Compact Field Guide to the Study of Microsaccades: Challenges and Functions”. Vision Research, Fixational eye movements and perception, 118. 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.01.018.
Rucci Michele, Jonathan D. Victor. 2015. “The Unsteady Eye: An Information-Processing Stage, Not a Bug”. Trends in Neurosciences 38. No. 4. 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.01.005.
Shapiro Lawrence A. Embodied Cognition. 2011. London and New York: Routledge.
Stenning Keith, Michiel Van Lambalgen. 2008. Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Stevens John K., Robert C. Emerson, George L. Gerstein, Tamas Kallos, Gordon R. Neufeld, Charles W. Nichols, Alan C. Rosenquist. 1976. “Paralysis of the Awake Human: Visual Perceptions”. Vision Research 16. No. 1. 93-IN9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(76)90082-1.
Strack F., L.L. Martin, S. Stepper. 1988. “Inhibiting and Facilitating Conditions of the Human Smile: A Nonobtrusive Test of the Facial Feedback Hypothesis”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54. No. 5. 768–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768.
Sullivan Jacqueline A. 2009. “The Multiplicity of Experimental Protocols: A Challenge to Reductionist and Non-Reductionist Models of the Unity of Neuroscience”. Synthese 167. No. 3. 511–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9389-4.
Thelen Esther, Gregor Schöner, Christian Scheier, Linda B. Smith. 2001. “The Dynamics of Embodiment: A Field Theory of Infant Perseverative Reaching”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24. No. 1 (February): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003910.
Thelen Esther, Linda B. Smith. 2002. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action 5. print. MIT Press/Bradford Books Series in Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Vanhaudenhuyse Audrey, Quentin Noirhomme, Luaba J.-F. Tshibanda, Marie-Aurelie Bruno, Pierre Boveroux, Caroline Schnakers, Andrea Soddu et al. 2010. “Default Network Connectivity Reflects the Level of Consciousness in Non-Communicative Brain-Damaged Patients”. Brain 133. No. 1. 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp313.
Varela Francisco J. 1999. “The Specious Present: A Neurophenomenology of Time Consciousness”. In Naturalizing Phenomenology: Issues in Contemporary Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Ed. J. Petitot, F. Varela, B. Pachoud, and J.-M. Roy, 266–314. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wagenmakers E.-J., T. Beek, L. Dijkhoff, Q. F. Gronau, A. Acosta, R. B. Adams, D. N. Albohn et al. 2016. “Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)”. Perspectives on Psychological Science 11. No. 6. 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616674458.
Whitham Emma M., Sean P. Fitzgibbon, Trent W. Lewis, Kenneth J. Pope, Dylan DeLosAngeles, C. Richard Clark, Peter Lillie, Andrew Hardy, Simon C. Gandevia, and John O. Willoughby. 2011. “Visual Experiences during Paralysis”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00160.
Wilson Margaret. 2002. “Six Views of Embodied Cognition”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9. No. 4. 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322.
Wilson Robert A., Lucia Foglia. 2017. “Embodied Cognition”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/embodied-cognition/.
Wołoszyn Kinga, Mateusz Hohol. 2017. “Commentary: The Poverty of Embodied Cognition”. Frontiers in Psychology 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00845.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 556
Liczba cytowań: 1
