دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 140927
ترجمه فارسی عنوان مقاله

چگونه اتو ذهن خود را گسترش داد، اما ممکن است: تئوری سیستم های پویا و انتخاب گروه اجتماعی و فرهنگی

عنوان انگلیسی
How Otto did not extend his mind, but might have: Dynamic systems theory and social-cultural group selection
کد مقاله سال انتشار تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی
140927 2017 21 صفحه PDF
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Cognitive Systems Research, Volume 45, October 2017, Pages 124-144

ترجمه کلمات کلیدی
اشتباهات قانون اساسی، انتخاب گروه فرهنگی، شناخت توزیع شده، تئوری سیستم های دینامیکی، شناخت گسترش یافته: شناخت شناختی،
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی
Causal-constitution fallacy; Cultural group selection; Distributed cognition; Dynamical systems theory; Extended cognition: Situated cognition;
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله  چگونه اتو ذهن خود را گسترش داد، اما ممکن است: تئوری سیستم های پویا و انتخاب گروه اجتماعی و فرهنگی

چکیده انگلیسی

Proponents of cognitive Situationism argue that the human mind is embodied, embedded in both natural and social-cultural environments and extended creating both extended and distributed cognition. Anti-situationists reject all or some of these claims. I argue that four major objections to extended cognition: (1) the mark of the cognitive, (2) the function-identity fallacy, (3) cognitive bloat, and (4) scientific irrelevance lose much of their sting in the case of distributed cognition, the extension of cognitive agency to a group of cognitive agents, such as a scientific research team. However, I claim that a crucial fifth challenge, that advocates of the extended mind commit the causal-constitution fallacy, has yet to be satisfactorily addressed. I focus on Spyridon Palermos’ use of dynamic systems theory to refute this charge and I argue that his appeal to dynamic systems theory as a way of understanding system-constitution fails. Instead, I suggest a social-cultural group selection hypothesis for understanding system-constitution. But, I leave it for another day to elaborate that hypothesis’ empirical plausibility.