Beyond the Flesh: Some Lessons from a Mole Cricket

What do linguistic symbols do for minds like ours, and how (if at all) can basic embodied, dynamical, and situated approaches do justice to high-level human thought and reason? These two questions are best addressed together, since our answers to the first may inform the second. The key move in scaling up simple embodied cognitive science is, I argue, to take very seriously the potent role of human-built structures in transforming the spaces of human learning and reason. In particular, in this article I look at a range of cases involving what I dub surrogate situations. Here, we actively create restricted artificial environments that allow us to deploy basic perception-action-reason routines in the absence of their proper objects. Examples include the use of real-world models, diagrams, and other concrete external symbols to support dense looping interactions with a variety of stable external structures that stand in for the absent states of affairs. Language itself, I finally suggest, is the most potent and fundamental form of such surrogacy. Words are both cheap stand-ins for gross behavioral outcomes, and the concrete objects that structure new spaces for basic forms of learning and reason. A good hard look at surrogate situatedness thus turns the standard skeptical challenge on its head. But it raises important questions concerning what really matters about these new approaches, and it helps focus what I see as the major challenge for the future: how, in detail, to conceptualize the role of symbols (both internal and external) in dynamical cognitive processes.

[1]  D. Lewkowicz,et al.  A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. , 2007, Journal of cognitive neuroscience.

[2]  R. K. Thompson,et al.  Language-naive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) judge relations between relations in a conceptual matching-to-sample task. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[3]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[4]  J. S. Turner,et al.  The Extended Organism: The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures , 2000 .

[5]  R. Cox Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences , 1999 .

[6]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  Further Experiments in the Evolution of Minimally Cognitive Behavior: From Perceiving Affordances to Selective Attention , 2000 .

[7]  T. Gelder,et al.  The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  Alan Garfinkel,et al.  Self-organizing systems : the emergence of order , 1987 .

[9]  Leslie Marsh Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence , 2009 .

[10]  J. Lucy,et al.  Language acquisition and conceptual development: Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach , 2001 .

[11]  A. Clark Leadership and Influence: The Manager as Coach, Nanny and Artificial DNA , 1999 .

[12]  Judy S. DeLoache,et al.  Symbolic functioning in preschool children , 1994 .

[13]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Embodiment is the foundation, not a level , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[14]  Andy Clark,et al.  Doing without representing? , 1994, Synthese.

[15]  Henrik Gedenryd How designers work - making sense of authentic cognitive activities , 1998 .

[16]  R. M. Gaze Dynamic patterns , 1975, Nature.

[17]  K. Cheng A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation , 1986, Cognition.

[18]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Toward the Evolution of Dynamical Neural Networks for Minimally Cognitive Behavior , 1996 .

[19]  D. Knight Kinds of minds , 2007, Nature.

[20]  M K Kaiser,et al.  How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. , 1995, Science.

[21]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  Elizabeth S Spelke,et al.  Language and number: a bilingual training study , 2001, Cognition.

[23]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children , 1994, Nature.

[24]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  Biological Neural Networks in Invertebrate Neuroethology and Robotics. Editors: Randall D. Beer, Roy E. Ritzmann, Thomas McKenna (Academic Press, Inc., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993) , 1996, SGAR.

[25]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The development of features in object concepts , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[26]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Kevin Warwick Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence , 2003 .

[28]  E. Spelke,et al.  Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation , 1996, Cognition.

[29]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Integration of representation into goal-driven behavior-based robots , 1992, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[30]  T. Gelder,et al.  What Might Cognition Be, If Not Computation? , 1995 .

[31]  J. Deloache Symbolic functioning in very young children: understanding of pictures and models. , 1991, Child development.

[32]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  Understanding intelligence , 2020, Inequality by Design.

[33]  A. Clark Magic Words: How Language Augments Human Computation , 1998 .

[34]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Quantity-based interference and symbolic representations in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[35]  Andy Clark,et al.  Natural-Born Cyborgs? , 2001, Cognitive Technology.

[36]  F. Varela,et al.  Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  Seungjin Choi,et al.  Shaping meanings for language: universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semanti , 2001 .

[38]  De Vries Book review: R.C. O'Reilly and Y. Munakata: Computational explorations in cognitive neuroscience: understanding the mind by stimulating the brain. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. , 2002 .

[39]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain , 2000 .

[40]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[41]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  R. Gregory,et al.  Mind in Science. A History of Explanations in Psychology and Physics , 1983 .

[43]  E. Thelen,et al.  The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[44]  Linda B. Smith Language acquisition and conceptual development: How domain-general processes may create domain-specific biases , 2001 .

[45]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 1999 .

[46]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  Sources of Flexibility in Human Cognition: Dual-Task Studies of Space and Language , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  Carl Anderson,et al.  The extended organism: The physiology of animal-built structures , 2000, Complex..

[48]  Andy Clark Forces, Fields, and the Role of Knowledge in Action , 2003, Adapt. Behav..

[49]  P. Carruthers The cognitive functions of language , 2002, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[50]  Barbara Webb,et al.  A Cricket Robot , 1996 .

[51]  Andy Clark,et al.  Visual Awareness and Visuomotor Action , 1999 .