How Otto did not extend his mind, but might have: Dynamic systems theory and social-cultural group selection

0Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rottschaefer, W. A. (2017). How Otto did not extend his mind, but might have: Dynamic systems theory and social-cultural group selection. Cognitive Systems Research, 45, 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.06.001

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free