2004
Volume 116, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Samenvatting

Abstract

Human bodies are experiencing bodies that feel pain, pleasure and have a point of view. Our experiencing bodies are the natural starting point to develop a fully natural scientific account of our cognitive and experiential processes. However, accepting the experiential nature of our bodies is hampered by a long-standing pre-scientific conceptual dualism between mind and body. Nowadays, this dualism has been morphed into a modernlooking scientific version by the computer metaphor that interprets mind as abstracted, computational processes, while ignoring experience. In this paper, I will, first, sketch how experiencing bodies are a fact of life, second, discuss how the computer metaphor provides a conceptually dualistic and truncated interpretation of who we are, third, present three reasons why this conservative dualistic interpretation is problematical, and, fourth, argue that our experiencing bodies are straightforward natural phenomena that require a home in the general naturalistic perspective of the world.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2024.3.003.KEIJ
2024-09-01
2024-12-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bod, R. (2020) De vergeten wetenschappen: Een geschiedenis van de humaniora. Prometheus: Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cao, R. (2022) Multiple realizability and the spirit of functionalism, Synthese, 200(6), 506.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chalmers, D. J. (1996) The conscious mind. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cisek, P. (2019) Resynthesizing behavior through phylogenetic refinement, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), pp. 2265-2287.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Degenaar, J., & O’regan, J. K. (2017). Sensorimotor theory and enactivism, Topoi, 36(3), pp. 393-407.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Feinberg, T. E., & Mallatt, J. M. (2016) The ancient origins of consciousness: How the brain created experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Frankish, K. (2016) Illusionism as a theory of consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(11-12), pp. 11-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2019) The evolution of the sensitive soul: Learning and the origins of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2016) Mind, matter, and metabolism, The Journal of Philosophy, 113(10), pp. 481-506.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2020) Metazoa: Animal minds and the birth of consciousness. William Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hooijmans, M., & Keijzer, F. (2007) Robotics, biological grounding and the Fregean tradition, Pragmatics & cognition, 15(3), pp. 515-546.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jékely, G. (2021) The chemical brain hypothesis for the origin of nervous systems, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1821), 20190761.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jékely, G., Keijzer, F., & Godfrey-Smith, P. (2015) An option space for early neural evolution, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370(1684), 20150181.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Keijzer, F.A. (2001) Representation and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Keijzer, F. A. (2017) Evolutionary convergence and biologically embodied cognition, Interface Focus, 7(3), 20160123.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Keijzer, F. (2021) Demarcating cognition: the cognitive life sciences, Synthese, 198(1), pp. 137-157.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Levin, M. (2023) Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary scaling from physiology to mind, Animal Cognition, pp. 1-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Levin, M., Keijzer, F., Lyon, P., & Arendt, D. (2021) Uncovering cognitive similarities and differences, conservation and innovation, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1821), 20200458.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lyon, P. (2006) The biogenic approach to cognition, Cognitive Processing, 7(1), pp. 11-29.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyon, P., Keijzer, F., Arendt, D., & Levin, M. (2021). Reframing cognition: getting down to biological basics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1820), 20190750.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Malafouris, L. (2019) Mind and material engagement, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), pp. 1-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (red.) (2018) The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pasquinelli, M. (2023) The eye of the master: A social history of artificial intelligence. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Piccinini, G., & Scarantino, A. (2010) Computation vs. information processing: why their difference matters to cognitive science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(3), pp. 237-246.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1981) Thinking in movement, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39(4), 399-407.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2009). Animation: The fundamental, essential, and properly descriptive concept, Continental Philosophy Review, 42(3), pp. 375-400.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1996) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Mazijk, C. (2021) De wereld als verschijning: Fenomenologie en de twintigste eeuw. Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Zahavi, D. (2003) Husserl’s phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2024.3.003.KEIJ
Loading
Dit is een verplicht veld
Graag een geldig e-mailadres invoeren
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error