Construing the Mind Relative to its Relationship to a body interacting with the World

Authors

  • Godwins Jude Author

Keywords:

Cognition, Perception, Motor Function, Ideo-Motor, Sensory Motor

Abstract

Conventional cognitive science conceived of the mind as a system that processed abstract information, having a relationship with the outside world that was of near inconsequential import. Perceptual and motor functions did not count in understanding cognitive processes.  In cognitive psychology, knowledge was restricted to the propositional.  In artificial intelligence, computer models busied themselves predominantly with processing abstract symbols.  In philosophy, concepts were no more than abstract symbol systems. The philosophy of mind became the philosophy of propositional concepts.  Fodor (1983) insisted cognition was not modular, though its links to the world were (modularity hypothesis). The perceptual-motor processing bore only curtailed informational input and output. Alternatively, we have in our day an embodied way of conceptualizing cognition that admits, in its various facets, that cognitive processes are extensively grounded in the body’s interactions with the outside world, on sensory-motor processing.  It is no longer a mind that goes about rectifying abstract tasks; it is now a body needing the solidarity of mind to do its chores.  Well back in the 1890s, William James was already advancing an ideo-motor theory of perception.  Jean Piaget (1950) showed how cognitive abilities arose from sensory-motor abilities. J. J. Gibson (1979) insisted in his ecological cognition that perception entailed direct interaction with the environment. Behavior afforded behavior, he held (Gibson, 1979, 135)1.

Author Biography

  • Godwins Jude

    Department of Philosophy

    Seat of Wisdom Seminary,

    Imo State University, Owerri.

References

Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamic Approaches to Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 91-99.

Brooks, R.A. (1991b). New Approaches to Robotics. Science, 253, 1227-1232.

Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Umilta, C.A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Evidence for Visuomotor Priming Effect. Neuroreport, 8, 347-349.

Fadiga, L. & Craighero, L. (2003) New Insights on Sensorimoror Integration: From Hand Action to Speech Perception. Brain and Cognition, 53, 514-524

Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., and Olivier, E. (2005) Human Motor Cortex Excitability During the Perception of Other’s Action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 213-218.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Glenberg, A.M. (1997). What Memory Is For. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20 (1), 1-55.

Glenberg, A.M. & Robertson, D.A. (1999). Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning. Journal of Memory and Languages, 37, 141-154.

Goodale, M.A. & Milner, A. D. (1992) Separate Visual Pathways for Perception and Action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15, 20-25.

Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Johnston, W. A., Dark, V.J., & Jacoby, L.L. (1985). Perceptual Fluency and Recognition Judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 3-11

Krauss, R.M. (1998). Why Do we Gesture When We Speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 54-60

Kosslyn, S.M., Pascual-Leone, A., Felician, O., Camposano, S., Keenan, J.P., Thompson, W.L., Ganis, G., Sukel, K.E., and Alpert, N.M. (1999). The Role of Area 17 in Visual Imagery: Convergent Evidence from PET and TMS. Science, 284, 167-170.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Parsons, L.M.,Fox, P.T., Downs, J.H. ,Glass,T., Hirsch,TB(1995). Use of Implicit Motor Imagery for Visual Shape Discrimination as Revealed by PET. Nature, 375, 54-58.

Thelen, E. & Smith, L.B. (1994). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six Views of Embodied Cognition. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 9 (4), 625-636.

Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (1997). A Visuospatial “Phonological Loop” in Working Memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 25, 313-320.

Zwaan, R.A. (1999). Embodied Cognition, Perceptual Symbols, and Situated Models. Discourse Processes, 28, 81-88

Downloads

Published

2022-12-20

Issue

Section

CJMSSH Volume 1 Issue 2

Similar Articles

1-10 of 11

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.