On the prospects of basal cognition research becoming fully evolutionary: promising avenues and cautionary notes.

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda, Matthew Sims
{"title":"On the prospects of basal cognition research becoming fully evolutionary: promising avenues and cautionary notes.","authors":"Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda, Matthew Sims","doi":"10.1007/s40656-025-00660-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The research programme 'basal cognition' adopts an evolutionary perspective for studying biological cognition. This entails investigating possible cognitive processes in 'simple'-often non-neuronal-organisms as a means to discover conserved mechanisms and adaptive capacities underwriting cognition in more complex (neuronal) organisms. However, by pulling in the opposite direction of a tradition that views cognition as something that is unique to neuronal organisms, basal cognition has been met with a fair amount of scepticism by philosophers and scientists. The very idea of approaching cognition by way of investigating the behaviour and underlying mechanisms in, say, bacteria, has been seen as preposterous and harmful to both cognitive science and biology. This paper aims to temper such scepticism to a certain degree by drawing parallels with how the evolution of 'development,' another loaded concept that refers to a not-so-easily definable, contested bundle of phenomena, has been fruitfully approached in Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo). Through this comparison, we identify four promising features of the basal cognition approach. These features suggest that sweeping scepticism may be unwarranted. However, each of them comes with important epistemic cautionary notes that should not be disregarded. By presenting these twofold considerations as potential ways to integrate a fully evolutionary perspective into basal cognition, this paper seeks to provide clarity and direction for the advancement of this research programme.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":"47 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11802611/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-025-00660-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The research programme 'basal cognition' adopts an evolutionary perspective for studying biological cognition. This entails investigating possible cognitive processes in 'simple'-often non-neuronal-organisms as a means to discover conserved mechanisms and adaptive capacities underwriting cognition in more complex (neuronal) organisms. However, by pulling in the opposite direction of a tradition that views cognition as something that is unique to neuronal organisms, basal cognition has been met with a fair amount of scepticism by philosophers and scientists. The very idea of approaching cognition by way of investigating the behaviour and underlying mechanisms in, say, bacteria, has been seen as preposterous and harmful to both cognitive science and biology. This paper aims to temper such scepticism to a certain degree by drawing parallels with how the evolution of 'development,' another loaded concept that refers to a not-so-easily definable, contested bundle of phenomena, has been fruitfully approached in Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo). Through this comparison, we identify four promising features of the basal cognition approach. These features suggest that sweeping scepticism may be unwarranted. However, each of them comes with important epistemic cautionary notes that should not be disregarded. By presenting these twofold considerations as potential ways to integrate a fully evolutionary perspective into basal cognition, this paper seeks to provide clarity and direction for the advancement of this research programme.

基础认知研究完全进化的前景:有希望的途径和警告。
“基础认知”研究项目采用进化的观点来研究生物认知。这需要研究“简单”(通常是非神经元)生物体中可能的认知过程,作为发现更复杂(神经元)生物体中认知的保守机制和适应能力的一种手段。然而,由于与将认知视为神经元有机体特有的传统背道而驰,基础认知受到了哲学家和科学家的相当多的怀疑。通过研究细菌的行为和潜在机制来接近认知的想法,一直被认为是荒谬的,对认知科学和生物学都是有害的。本文旨在通过与“发展”的进化进行类比,在一定程度上缓和这种怀疑。“发展”是另一个内涵丰富的概念,指的是一组不那么容易定义的、有争议的现象,在进化发育生物学(Evo-Devo)中得到了富有成效的探讨。通过这种比较,我们确定了基础认知方法的四个有希望的特征。这些特征表明,全面的怀疑可能是没有根据的。然而,它们中的每一个都有重要的认识警示,不应该被忽视。通过提出这两方面的考虑,作为将完全进化的观点整合到基础认知的潜在方法,本文试图为这一研究计划的进展提供清晰和方向。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信