Extending the Concept of Cognition and Meta‑Theoretical Anthropomorphism

Maja Białek
{"title":"Extending the Concept of Cognition and Meta‑Theoretical Anthropomorphism","authors":"Maja Białek","doi":"10.30687/jolma/2723-9640/2023/02/007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How to deal with the controversies surrounding applying the concept of COGNITION to non-humans? I suggest a bottom-up approach that makes room for the pluralistic perspectives of non-human cognition researchers without disregarding philosophers’ worries about overextending the concept. My proposal is that COGNITION should be a holistic story, in which no part can be understood without the context of the whole. If such a project is to succeed, however, we need to deal with anthropomorphism – not of the well-known, superficial kind, but understood as a deeply embedded framework determining how we understand cognitive life in general. After explaining what this kind of meta-theoretical anthropomorphism is, I argue that investigating non-human cognition is the best way to make explicit many of our hidden assumptions and re-examine them. In the second section of the paper, I present how this approach can be effective in reconsidering Brandom’s proposal of how to define levels of concept use for the purposes of empirical research on non-humans.","PeriodicalId":516938,"journal":{"name":"De-Humanizing Cognition, Intelligence, and Agency. A Critical Assessment Between Philosophy, Ethics, and Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"De-Humanizing Cognition, Intelligence, and Agency. A Critical Assessment Between Philosophy, Ethics, and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30687/jolma/2723-9640/2023/02/007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

How to deal with the controversies surrounding applying the concept of COGNITION to non-humans? I suggest a bottom-up approach that makes room for the pluralistic perspectives of non-human cognition researchers without disregarding philosophers’ worries about overextending the concept. My proposal is that COGNITION should be a holistic story, in which no part can be understood without the context of the whole. If such a project is to succeed, however, we need to deal with anthropomorphism – not of the well-known, superficial kind, but understood as a deeply embedded framework determining how we understand cognitive life in general. After explaining what this kind of meta-theoretical anthropomorphism is, I argue that investigating non-human cognition is the best way to make explicit many of our hidden assumptions and re-examine them. In the second section of the paper, I present how this approach can be effective in reconsidering Brandom’s proposal of how to define levels of concept use for the purposes of empirical research on non-humans.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知概念的扩展与元理论拟人化
如何处理有关将认知概念应用于非人类的争议?我建议采用一种自下而上的方法,既为非人类认知研究人员的多元观点留出空间,又不忽视哲学家对过度扩展这一概念的担忧。我的建议是,认知应该是一个整体的故事,其中任何部分的理解都离不开整体的背景。然而,如果要使这一计划取得成功,我们就需要处理拟人化问题--不是那种众所周知的、肤浅的拟人化,而是将其理解为一种深层次的框架,决定着我们如何理解一般的认知生活。在解释了什么是这种元理论拟人化之后,我认为研究非人类认知是明确我们许多隐藏的假设并重新审视它们的最佳途径。在本文的第二部分,我将介绍这种方法如何有效地重新考虑布兰德姆关于如何界定概念使用水平的提议,以便对非人类进行实证研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Do Willows Really Weep? Cognition, Its Grammar, and the Problem of Pluralism Conceptual, Linguistic and Metascientific Disagreements in Recent Science On the Genesis, Continuum, and the Lowest Bound of Selves What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Cognition? Human, Cybernetic, and Phylogenetic Conceptual Schemes Extending the Concept of Cognition and Meta‑Theoretical Anthropomorphism The Consequences of Enactivism on Moral Considerability in Environmental Ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1