Metaphysics of the cognition debate: a plurimodel theory of cognition

Q4 Arts and Humanities
J. Marcum
{"title":"Metaphysics of the cognition debate: a plurimodel theory of cognition","authors":"J. Marcum","doi":"10.21825/philosophica.82124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Proponents of the dual-process theory claim that two distinct types of mental faculties or minds are responsible for human cognition. The first is evolutionarily old and not unique to humans but shared with other organisms. Type-1’s key feature is autonomy from cognitive capacities; hence, it does not require working memory. Type-2 is evolutionarily recent and thought to be uniquely human. Its key feature is reflective cognitive-decoupling of Type-1 processes, if warranted; and it requires working memory. Critics, however, argue that one mind is sufficient to account for human cognition and propose a unimodel theory of cognition. The debate over these theories depends upon metaphysical notions concerning the nature of cognitive capacities and processes; and, how to investigate and explain them. In this paper, I explore these notions in terms of analyzing the metaphysical presuppositions of dualism and monism, and then the methodological approaches of holism and reductionism, as well as the ontological categories of organicism and physicalism, which are often unspecified and/or unexamined in the cognition debate. Clarification of these metaphysical notions and consideration of others is important for progressing towards the debate’s resolution. To that end, a plurimodel theory of cognition—based on a metaphysical presupposition and a","PeriodicalId":36843,"journal":{"name":"Argumenta Philosophica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumenta Philosophica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Proponents of the dual-process theory claim that two distinct types of mental faculties or minds are responsible for human cognition. The first is evolutionarily old and not unique to humans but shared with other organisms. Type-1’s key feature is autonomy from cognitive capacities; hence, it does not require working memory. Type-2 is evolutionarily recent and thought to be uniquely human. Its key feature is reflective cognitive-decoupling of Type-1 processes, if warranted; and it requires working memory. Critics, however, argue that one mind is sufficient to account for human cognition and propose a unimodel theory of cognition. The debate over these theories depends upon metaphysical notions concerning the nature of cognitive capacities and processes; and, how to investigate and explain them. In this paper, I explore these notions in terms of analyzing the metaphysical presuppositions of dualism and monism, and then the methodological approaches of holism and reductionism, as well as the ontological categories of organicism and physicalism, which are often unspecified and/or unexamined in the cognition debate. Clarification of these metaphysical notions and consideration of others is important for progressing towards the debate’s resolution. To that end, a plurimodel theory of cognition—based on a metaphysical presupposition and a
认知辩论的形而上学:认知的多元模式理论
双过程理论的支持者声称,两种不同类型的心理机能或思想负责人类的认知。第一种是进化上古老的,不是人类独有的,而是其他生物共有的。1型的主要特征是认知能力的自主性;因此,它不需要工作记忆。2型是最近才进化出来的,被认为是人类独有的。它的关键特征是1型过程的反思性认知解耦,如果有必要的话;它需要工作记忆。然而,批评者认为,一个心灵足以解释人类的认知,并提出了一种单一模式的认知理论。关于这些理论的争论依赖于关于认知能力和过程本质的形而上学概念;以及如何调查和解释它们。在本文中,我通过分析二元论和一元论的形而上学前提,然后是整体论和还原论的方法论方法,以及有机论和物理主义的本体论类别来探索这些概念,这些概念在认知辩论中经常未被指定和/或未经检查。澄清这些形而上的概念并考虑其他概念对于解决辩论的进展是重要的。为此,一种基于形而上学预设的认知多元模式理论和一种基于形而上学预设的认知多元模式理论
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
Argumenta Philosophica
Argumenta Philosophica Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信