DOCSLIB.ORG

The Extended Mind

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Extended Mind The Extended Mind 1. The Extended Body: It’s not implausible to think that, in some cases, parts of the external world become a part of our bodies. For instance, it is reasonable to think that a prosthetic limb is an extension of—i.e., a PART of—that person’s body. Perhaps too, things like pacemakers, hearing aids, canes, etc. are all a PART OF the bodies of those who have them. There may be other cases too: For instance, a great musician will often claim that their instrument is a “part” of them; they “become one” with their instrument. But, what if the mind is like that? That is, what if the mind extends beyond the brain? 2. The Extended Mind: We manipulate the world in order to aid and augment some cognitive processes all the time (call this an epistemic action). We use scrap paper (or our fingers!) to figure out tough math problems, we write down important things so that we can remember them, and so on. Now, imagine that you are asked to determine how various shapes ought to be rotated and arranged in order to form a perfect square: You solve this puzzle in three different scenarios: (a) You perform the rotations in your head in order to figure it out. (b) You figure it out using a neurally-implanted computer chip which you can operate with your brain to visually rotate each shape inside your head. (c) You figure it out using an external computer, pressing keys to manually rotate each shape on a screen. You then solve the puzzle (pictured to the right). Clearly, solving the puzzle the old-fashioned way, “in your head”, is a cognitive process of your mind. Now ask: Are the processes that occur in (b) and (c) also cognitive processes of the mind? If not, why not? In scenario (a), you consciously manipulate a part of the world—namely, your brain—in order to solve the puzzle. Are the other two scenarios any different? 1 Privilege brain-matter? If you think about it, when you use a computer that is inside your head, (b), you are ALSO consciously manipulating some part of the world in order to solve the puzzle—only, the stuff inside of your head that you are manipulating is not organic brain matter, but rather a computer chip. Is the BRAIN, or CARBON somehow privileged over, say, SILICON? There doesn’t seem to be any good reason for such discrimination. [Or is there? Do you agree?] Privilege the inside of the skull? Furthermore, the only difference between (b) and (c) is the LOCATION of that computer—namely, OUTSIDE of your skull, rather than inside. So, is the location INSIDE of the skull somehow privileged over those locations that are outside of it? This doesn’t seem like a justifiable discrimination either. [Do you agree?] But, once we reject the claim that there is are no good reasons to insist that (i) the material of the mind is restricted to organic brain matter, or that (ii) the location of the mind is restricted only to those locations inside the skull, an interesting thesis arises: The Extended Mind Thesis. This thesis is the first premise of the following argument: 1. The Extended Mind Thesis: If a part of the world functions as a process which, were it done in the head, we would have no hesitation in recognizing it as part of our cognitive process, then that part of the world is part of our cognitive process. 2. Your iphone functions in such a way. 3. Therefore, your iphone is a part of your cognitive process (and thus, your mind). 3. Objections: Here are some worries: 1. In order for something to be a cognitive process, it must be conscious (unlike iphone). Reply: That’s simply not true. Many cognitive processes occur unconsciously. 2. The mind is portable. It goes with you wherever you go. External objects do not. Reply: Even if this were a requirement for something to be a part of your mind, we could still include things like your iphone as a part of your mind, since it too is portable, and reliably goes with you wherever you go. 3. Admitting that, e.g., an iphone is a part of my COGNITIVE PROCESSES does not entail that it is therefore a part of my MIND. Reply: Consider the following two stories: 2 Inga: Inga just heard that the new Star Wars movie came out today. She forms the desire to go see it. She thinks for a moment and recalls that the movie theater is in New Town. She goes and sees the movie. Otto: Otto suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. He has trouble forming new memories. He carries around a notebook where he keeps important information that he wants to remember. Otto has just heard that the new Star Wars movie came out today. He forms the desire to go see it. He consults his notebook and it says that the movie theater is in New Town. So he goes there and sees the movie. Now, clearly Inga believes that the proposition <The movie theater is in New Town> is true. Furthermore, she believes this BEFORE she consults her memory. Surely, we do not want to say that people only believe things that they are CURRENTLY thinking of. (Call these occurrent beliefs.) Admittedly, her belief is not an OCCURRENT belief. We might instead call it a dispositional belief—i.e., she is DISPOSED to report that she believes this proposition when asked. But, ask yourself: Do you have beliefs that you are not currently thinking of? E.g., don’t you believe that you live in Williamsburg, that you are a human being, and so on, even when you are not consciously thinking about these beliefs? So, Inga’s beliefs are stored in her brain—and beliefs are a part of the mind. But, the two cases are completely analogous except for the fact that Otto must consult a notebook instead of his brain. So, it seems that Otto ALSO believes that <The movie theater is in New Town> even BEFORE he consults his notebook. So, Otto’s beliefs are stored in his notebook—and beliefs are a part of the mind. Therefore, a part of Otto’s mind is in his notebook. The alternative is to say that, at best, Otto believes that the movie theater is wherever his notebook SAYS it is. But, then, in Inga’s case, we would have to say that, at best, she merely believes that the museum is wherever her memory has recorded that it is. But, this doesn’t seem to be what she believes. Or at least, that is not ALL she believes. Imagine if I asked you, “Do you believe that you live in Williamsburg?” and you replied, “I’m not sure. I only believe that I live wherever my memory tells me I believe. Hold on.” [consulting memory] “Yes, now I believe that I live in Williamsburg.” That is absurd. Chalmers says this is “one step too many”. For simplicity, we should just cut out this middle-man. He writes: The moral is that when it comes to belief, there is nothing sacred about skull and skin. What makes some information count as a belief is the role it plays, and there is no reason why the relevant role can be played only from inside the body. 3 Rebuttal: We might insist that there are relevant disanalogies between Inga and Otto’s case, which entail that Inga has the non-occurent belief but Otto does not: Inga’s belief is in her head, but Otto’s is outside of his head. Reply: We cannot simply STIPULATE this. That is “begging the question”—i.e., assuming to be true the very claim that is being debated. Inga’s belief “stays put”. It is reliable, and doesn’t “come and go” as Otto’s notebook might. It would seem odd to say that Otto only has certain beliefs when he is carrying his notebook with him, but that he “forgets” things when he accidentally leaves it at home. Reply: But, Inga’s beliefs don’t really “stay put” either. They “come and go” too (e.g., when she is sleeping, or intoxicated). As long as they are reliably retrievable under certain conditions (e.g., when she is awake, sober, parts of her brain are not removed by an evil neuroscientist, etc.), then we can still attribute non-occurrent beliefs to her. Similarly, as long as Otto’s beliefs are reliably retrievable under certain conditions (e.g., when he is awake, sober, his notebook is with him, etc.), then we can say the same of Otto. And his beliefs ARE reliably retrievable under these conditions! Otto’s belief is gained by PERCEPTION (i.e., LOOKING AT his notebook). Meanwhile, Inga’s belief is gained by INTROSPECTION (i.e., looking INWARD, mentally). Reply: But, the phenomenological FEEL of retrieving a belief, memory, etc., does not seem important. We might imagine a being who has to use his EYES to recall memories, form occurrent beliefs, etc. (Chalmers mentions The Terminator as being portrayed in this way.) Conclusion: Unless you want to deny the existence of non-occurrent beliefs, then we must accept that Otto’s mind extends into his notebook. In short, the mind “ain’t all inside of the head”! 4. Some Implications: The Extended Mind Thesis is not just an interesting philosophical thesis. If true, it may have some surprising implications for the way we view the world: Exams test your mind’s ability to figure out problems, etc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Extended Mind Thesis and Mechanistic Explanations
    The Extended Mind Thesis and Mechanistic Explanations Peter Fazekas Institute of Philosophy, Research Centre for the Humanities Hungarian Academy of Sciences email: [email protected] Abstract The Extended Mind Thesis (EMT) is traditionally formulated against the bedrock of functionalism, and ongoing debates are typically bogged down with questions concerning the exact relationship between EMT and different versions of functionalism. In this paper, I offer a novel ally for EMT: the new mechanistic approach to explanation. I argue that the mechanistic framework provides useful resources not just to disambiguate EMT, and to show which objections fail to pose a serious challenge, but also to answer some of the deeper problems that stem from the functionalist roots of EMT. ! 1. Introduction The Extended Mind Thesis (EMT), first proposed by Clark and Chalmers (1998), claims that the vehicles of our cognitive processes and mental states can and sometimes do extend beyond the boundaries of our brain and even body (cf. Clark, 2008, p. 76). If a physical object plays a part in the machinery realising a cognitive process, then that physical object is part of the cognitive process, no matter whether it is inside or outside the head. This is the so-called parity principle (Clark & Chalmers, 1998, p. 8), the heart and soul of EMT. The most well-known illustration is the case of Otto and Inga. When Inga hears about a new exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) she retrieves from her biological memory that it is on 53rd Street and goes to the museum. Her counterpart, Otto, who suffers from a mild form of Alzheimer’s disease, uses a notebook to jot down and retrieve information.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Cognition and Extended Consciousness∗
    Extended Cognition and Extended Consciousness∗ David J. Chalmers It’s a pleasure to contribute to this volume honoring Andy Clark. Andy has been an influential figure for me ever since I read his first book Microcognition while I was in graduate school. A few years later I took up my first job as a post-doctoral fellow working with him in the newly initiated Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology program at Washington University in St Louis. We had a lot of adventures, but the one that seems to have left the most traces is our joint paper on “The Extended Mind”, which argued that cognitive processes can extend outside the brain and the body to include objects that we interact with in our environment. I recently came across hard copies of two early drafts of “The Extended Mind” in my files. The first draft was by Andy on his own, and is covered in handwritten comments by me. The second draft is a co-authored version with revisions by me, and is covered in handwritten comments by Andy. (I have put these two online at consc.net/papers/e-drafts.html.) There were many further iterations after that. The whole thing is a wonderful record of distributed and extended cognition, involving a complex cognitive process spread between Andy, me, various notes on paper, and computer files. I’m proud to have played a role in constituting this process. That said, I have to acknowledge that as with many cases of distributed cognition, there was an individual at the core who set the whole process into motion and who bears primary responsbility, and that individual was Andy.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Emotion
    Forthcoming in Philosophical Psychology EXTENDED EMOTION J. Adam Carter, Emma C. Gordon & S. Orestis Palermos Abstract: Recent thinking within philosophy of mind about the ways cognition can extend (e.g. Clark 2011; Clark & Chalmers 1998; Wilson 2000, 2004; Menary 2006) has yet to be integrated with philosophical theories of emotion, which give cognition a central role. We carve out new ground at the intersection of these areas, and in doing so, defend what we call the extended emotion thesis: i.e., the claim that some emotions can extend beyond skin and skull to parts of the external world. 0. INTRODUCTION Under certain descriptions, the claim that emotions ‘extend’ can be used to express ideas that are natural and familiar. Marshall McLuhan, for instance, famously advocated a very broad and intuitive idea of ‘human extension’ according to which individuals’ intellectual and emotional lives could be thought of as ‘extending’ into the world, through the resources of mass media and technology1. Within academic philosophy, at least one familiar expression of the idea of emotions ‘extending’ can be traced to David Hume’s account of motivational psychology; on this view, sentiment is necessary to motivate action, and thus as the thought would go, we might think of emotions as ‘extending’ through the causal vehicle of the actions they motivate. A much more provocative way, however, to think about emotions extending is along the following lines: that emotions themselves can extend beyond biological agents, and include parts of the physical world, external to the agent. On this proposal, the notion of emotions extending is not a metaphysically innocent metaphor: rather, some emotions themselves are claimed to supervene partly on extraorganismic elements in the 1 McLuhan (1964) world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Distributed Cognition: a Conceptual Framework
    submitted for Proceedings of Collective Intentionality IV, Siena (Italy), to be published as a special issue of Cognitive Systems Research The Emergence of Distributed Cognition: a conceptual framework Francis HEYLIGHEN, Margeret HEATH and Frank VAN OVERWALLE Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium {fheyligh, mheath, fjvoverw}@vub.ac.be ABSTRACT: We propose a first step in the development of an integrated theory of the emergence of distributed cognition/extended mind. Distributed cognition is seen as the confluence of collective intelligence and “situatedness”, or the extension of cognitive processes into the physical environment. The framework is based on five fundamental assumptions: 1) groups of agents self-organize to form a differentiated, coordinated system, adapted to its environment, 2) the system co-opts external media for internal propagation of information, 3) the resulting distributed cognitive system can be modelled as a learning, connectionist network, 4) information in the network is transmitted selectively, 5) novel knowledge emerges through non-linear, recurrent interactions. The implication for collective intentionality is that such a self-organizing agent collective can develop “mental content” that is not reducible to individual cognitions. Extended Mind: collective intelligence and distributed cognition From a cybernetic perspective [Heylighen & Joslyn, 2001], a cognitive system cannot be understood as a discrete collection of beliefs, procedures, and/or modules. Cognition is a continuously evolving process which relates present perceptions via internal states to potential further perceptions and actions. It thus allows an agent to anticipate what may happen, adapt to changes in its environment, and moreover effect changes upon its environment [Kirsch & Maglio, 1994].
    [Show full text]
  • Active Externalism and Epistemic Internalism
    Forthcoming in Erkenntnis ACTIVE EXTERNALISM AND EPISTEMIC INTERNALISM J. Adam Carter & S. Orestis Palermos University of Edinburgh Abstract. Internalist approaches to epistemic justification are, though controversial, considered a live option in contemporary epistemology. Accordingly, if ‘active’ externalist approaches in the philosophy of mind—e.g. the extended cognition and extended mind theses—are in principle incompatible with internalist approaches to justification in epistemology, then this will be an epistemological strike against, at least the prima facie appeal of, active externalism. It is shown here however that, contrary to pretheoretical intuitions, neither the extended cognition nor the extended mind theses are in principle incompatible with two prominent versions of epistemic internalism—viz., accessibilism and mentalism. In fact, one possible diagnosis is that pretheoretical intuitions regarding the incompatibility of active externalism with epistemic internalism are symptomatic of a tacit yet incorrect identification of epistemic internalism with epistemic individualism. Thus, active externalism is not in principle incompatible with epistemic internalism per se and does not (despite initial appearances to the contrary) significantly restrict one’s options in epistemology. Keywords: extended cognition, extended mind, epistemic internalism 1 Two Questions of Incompatibility Ever since the Putnam/Burge-style thought experiments led to the institution of content externalism—viz., the thesis that mental contents are widely
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Mind-Wandering Bruineberg
    Habitual smartphone use as extended mind-wandering Preprint before review, June 7, 2021 Jelle Bruineberg [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-5675-3376 Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University Regina E. Fabry [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-1078-1499 Department of Philosophy II, Ruhr University Bochum Habitual smartphone use as extended mind-wandering Jelle Bruineberg & Regina E. Fabry1 Abstract Smartphone use plays an increasingly important role in our daily lives. Philosophical research that has used first-wave or second-wave theories of extended cognition in order to understand our engagement with digital technologies has focused on the contribution of these technologies to the completion of specific cognitive tasks (e.g., remembering, reasoning, problem-solving, navigation). However, in a considerable number of cases, everyday smartphone use is either task-unrelated or task-free. In psychological research, these cases have been captured by notions such as absent-minded smartphone use (Marty- Dugas et al., 2018) or smartphone-related inattentiveness (Liebherr et al., 2020). Given the prevalence of these cases, we develop a conceptual framework that can accommodate the functional and phenomenological characteristics of task-unrelated or task-free smartphone use. To this end, we will integrate research on second-wave extended cognition with mind- wandering research and introduce the concept of ‘extended mind-wandering’. Elaborating the family resemblances approach to mind-wandering (Seli, Kane, Smallwood, et al., 2018), we will argue that task-unrelated or task-free smartphone use shares many characteristics with mind-wandering. We will suggest that an empirically informed conceptual analysis of cases of extended mind-wandering can enrich current work on digitally extended cognition by specifying the influence of the attention economy on our cognitive dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Mind” Thesis Helps to Solve a Fundamental Dilemma of Literacy Theory
    AVANT Volume IV, Number 2/2013 www.avant.edu.pl/en AVANT, Vol. IV, No. 2/2013 ISSN: 2082-6710 avant.edu.pl/en DOI: 10.12849/40202013.0709.0005 How the “Extended Mind” Thesis Helps to Solve a Fundamental Dilemma of Literacy Theory Marcin Trybulec Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin marcin.trybulec[]umcs.pl Received 25 June 2013; accepted 7 September 2013; published Autumn 2013. Abstract The aim of the paper is to outline the basic theoretical reasons for applying the concept of extended mind to literacy theory. In order to explicate theoreti- cal difficulties faced by literacy theory, one needs to take into account the de- bate regarding technological determinism. Using this debate as an example, one can observe two basic strategies applied to defining the concept of a me- dium. On the one hand, there exists a strategy to formulate a narrow defini- tion of a medium in terms of material artifacts. On the other hand, one can observe a strategy which relies on creating a wide definition of a medium. According to this definition, a medium is understood as a social institution which denotes a particular way of behaving and thinking. The paper aims at justifying the hypothesis that both interpretational strategies employed in defining a medium and the related concept of technology are inaccurate in certain important respects. If the argumentation presented here proves cor- rect, literacy theory will be faced with a serious dilemma: a choice between two equally unsuitable definitions of technology/media. However, the theoret- ical dilemma pertaining to the question of media can be elucidated by appeal- ing to the conceptual framework of the extended mind hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreword to Andy Clark's Supersizing the Mind
    Foreword to Andy Clark’s Supersizing the Mind David J. Chalmers A month ago, I bought an iPhone. The iPhone has already taken over some of the central functions of my brain. It has replaced part of my memory, storing phone numbers and addresses that I once would have taxed my brain with. It harbors my desires: I call up a memo with the names of my favorite dishes when I need to order at a local restaurant. I use it to calculate, when I need to figure out bills and tips. It is a tremendous resource in an argument, with Google ever present to help settle disputes. I make plans with it, using its calendar to help determine what I can and can’t do in the coming months. I even daydream on the iPhone, idly calling up words and images when my concentration slips. Friends joke that I should get the iPhone implanted into my brain. But if Andy Clark is right, all this would do is speed up the processing, and free up my hands. The iPhone is part of my mind already. Clark is a connoisseur of the myriad ways in which the mind relies on the world to get its work done. The first part of this marvelous book explores some of these ways: the extension of our bodies, the extension of our senses, and crucially, the use of language as a tool to extend our thought. The second part of the book defends the thesis that in at least some of these cases, the world is not serving as a mere instrument for the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Predictive Processing and Extended Consciousness: Why the Machinery of Consciousness
    DEUTS FAILURE 1 Predictive processing and extended consciousness: why the machinery of consciousness is (probably) still in the head and the DEUTS argument won’t let it leak outside Abstract Consciousness vehicle externalism (CVE) is the claim that the material machinery of a subject’s phenomenology partially leaks outside a subject’s brain, encompassing bodily and environmental structures. The DEUTS argument is the most prominent argument for CVE in the sensorimotor enactivists’ arsenal. In a recent series of publications, Kirchhoff and Kiverstein have deployed such an argument to claim that a prominent view of neural processing, namely predictive processing, is fully compatible with CVE. Indeed, in Kirchhoff and Kiverstein’s view, a proper understanding of predictive processing mandates CVE. In this essay, we critically examine Kirchhoff and Kiverstein’s argument. Our aim is to argue in favor of the following three points. First, that Kirchhoff and Kiverstein’s emphasis on cultural practices lends no support to CVE: at best, it vindicates some form of content externalism about phenomenal content. Secondly, the criteria Kirchhoff and Kiverstein propose to identify a subject’s phenomenal machinery greatly overgeneralize, leaving them open to a “consciousness bloat” objection, which is an analog of the cognitive bloat objection against the extended mind. Lastly, we will argue that the “consciousness bloat” problem is inbuilt in the very argumentative structure of the DEUTS argument. We will thus conclude that, contrary to the philosophical mainstream, DEUTS is not the best argument for CVE in the sensorimotor enactivists’ argumentative arsenal. Keywords: Predictive​ Processing, Free Energy Principle, Markov Blankets, Extended Consciousness, Sensorimotor Enactivism.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence Beyond the Philosophy of Mind
    RETHINKING MACHINES: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BEYOND THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND BY DANIEL JOSE ESTRADA DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Jonathan Waskan, Chair Associate Professor Daniel Korman Emeritus Professor Steven Wagner Associate Professor Andrew Arana Abstract Recent philosophy of mind has increasingly focused on the role of technology in shaping, influencing, and extending our mental faculties. Technology extends the mind in two basic ways: through the creative design of artifacts and the purposive use of instruments. If the meaningful activity of technological artifacts were exhaustively described in these mind-dependent terms, then a philosophy of technology would depend entirely on our theory of mind. In this dissertation, I argue that a mind-dependent approach to technology is mistaken. Instead, some machines are best understood as independent participants in their own right, contributing to and augmenting a variety of social practices as active, though often unrecognized, community members. Beginning with Turing’s call for “fair play for machines”, I trace an argument concerning the social autonomy of nonhuman agents through the artificial intelligence debates of the 20th century. I’ll argue that undue focus on the mind has obscured the force of Turing’s proposal, leaving the debates in an unfortunate stalemate. I will then examine a network theoretic alternative to the study of multi- agent complex systems that can avoid anthropocentric, mind-dependent ways of framing human- machine interactions. I argue that this approach allows for both scientific and philosophical treatment of large and complicated sociotechnical systems, and suggests novel methods for designing, managing, and maintaining such systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending the Extended Mind from Cognition to Consciousness
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Department of Philosophy, History and Art Studies Faculty of Arts University of Helsinki Finland Extending the Extended Mind From Cognition to Consciousness Pii Telakivi DOCTORAL DISSERTATION to be presented for public discussion with the permission of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Helsinki, in lecture room 107, Athena (Siltavuorenpenger 3 A), on the 5th of September, 2020 at 12 o’clock. Filosofisia tutkimuksia Helsingin yliopistosta Filosofiska Studier från Helsingfors universitet Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki Publishers: Theoretical Philosophy Philosophy (in Swedish) Social and Moral Philosophy P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40A) 00014 University of Helsinki Finland Editors: Samuli Reijula Michiru Nagatsu Thomas Wallgren ISBN 978-951-51-6436-0 (pbk.) ISBN 978-951-51-6437-7 (PDF) ISSN 1458-8331 (series) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Unigrafia, Helsinki 2020 Cover: Mirko Varano Abstract Where does conscious experience stop and the rest of the world begin? Is the material basis of consciousness confined to the brain, or can it be extended to include other parts of the body and environmental elements? This study proposes an extended account: when all the requirements are fulfilled, an external tool may become part of the realising basis for certain experiential processes. Andy Clark and David Chalmers argued famously that the material basis of cognitive states sometimes extends out of the barriers of skin and skull to external objects such as notebooks and other everyday tools. However, they draw the line there: only cognition, but not consciousness can have an extended base.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: Memory, Embodied Cognition, and the Extended Mind
    Philosophical Psychology Vol. 19, No. 3, June 2006, pp. 281–289 Introduction: Memory, Embodied Cognition, and the Extended Mind John Sutton I introduce the seven papers in this special issue, by Andy Clark, Je´roˆme Dokic, Richard Menary, Jenann Ismael, Sue Campbell, Doris McIlwain, and Mark Rowlands. This paper explains the motivation for an alliance between the sciences of memory and the extended mind hypothesis. It examines in turn the role of worldly, social, and internalized forms of scaffolding to memory and cognition, and also highlights themes relating to affect, agency, and individual differences. Keywords: Memory; Embodied Cognition; Extended Mind; Autobiography; Affect; Agency Whatever one’s overall assessment of the current state of the sciences of memory, which span a daunting range of disciplines across the neurosciences, the cognitive sciences, and the social sciences, an integrative spirit can be identified in recent research trends. By this I refer not only to the development of frameworks—whether broadly reductive or not—for making sense of interfield or interlevel relations in memory studies (Bickle, 2003; Craver, 2002; Craver & Darden, 2001; Hardcastle, 1996; Sutton, 2004); but also to insistent attempts to integrate methods and results from the core laboratory disciplines of cognitive psychology and neuropsychology with memory research in ecological or ‘‘real-life’’ contexts. In 1978 Ulric Neisser could fairly lament that ‘‘If X is an interesting or socially significant aspect of memory, then psychologists have hardly ever studied X’’ (1978/2000, p. 4). But the situation changed swiftly, partly as a result of brave conceptual innovations and institutional initiatives taken by Neisser and other leading figures in the field, and partly because of complex and independent shifts both within psychology and in the wider cultural significance attributed to memory.
    [Show full text]