Embodied philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Embodied philosophy » Embodied philosophy

Page: 1 2

Embodied philosophy

DJPavel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2007

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 394

Posted 08/09/08 - 09:08 PM: Subject: Embodied philosophy	#1
Why is it that every time I synthesize a new picture of reality in my head, I find out that people have already written books about it, gave it a name, and posted an article on Wikipedia about it. Sheesh, is there any novelty left out there or did the smart guys get it ALL? Insights from my personal cross-cultural experience and investigations in science and philosophy (especially pragmatism) all nicely converge on what is apparently known as â€œembodied cognitionâ€ (or embodied philosophy). Basically, the idea is that all our higher cognition (including the beliefs in our precious objective truths) are shaped by our bodily systems that are (prior) evolved for perception and action. We categorize the reality in terms of what we can do with it. Iâ€™m wondering if anybody here has read anything on the subject and would like to discuss it. I just found out about this school of thought and Iâ€™m very excited about it because it rhymes so well with my own conclusions from interdisciplinary studies. DJP.

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 08/10/08 - 06:47 PM:	#2
I just found the New Science which is a few hundred years old and deals with sociology in threes. Everything is in threes. Well, there goes one notebook. You ask if all the smart guys got it already? Nah, we can always rediscover it. There is always something else to put your finger on, too.
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/10/08 - 10:02 PM:	#3
My first year of college, I was taking Aerospace Engineering. My intro professor was 87 years old and had worked on Zeppelins! One of the things he kept repeating in class was that "there is nothing new under the sun". Every idea is built up on old, sometimes even ancient, ideas just being given a new package of previous ideas, or in new combinations or applications. That doesn't mean creating new things is futile, just that the real value of something "new" is more efficient as better combinations of old. It is the way that anything evolves from something else.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

fgfgdftr
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 34

Posted 08/11/08 - 04:24 PM:	#4
On the subject of embodied philosophy I do not know. But I find how we acquire ideas quite interesting, or at least how they find themselves to us, because before we come to a conclusion or a synthesis of thought there lies behind it a heritage, or a precession of minds which have carried forth the idea, maybe the question of why we are inclined to one root of minds or the other is the subject of this embodied cognition??

DJPavel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2007

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 394

Posted 08/12/08 - 12:18 AM:	#5
Well, there's definitely something to be said about the evolution of ideas and reinventing the wheels in more sophisticated ways. As the greatest scientist like to say, they stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. But embodied cognition goes to the core of who we are as a species, not as a culture. It states that our mental processes are extensions of our â€œlowerâ€ brain modules evolved a long time ago for acting properly upon what they perceive. So, if you see a tree, you categorize it (form truths about it) in terms of what you can do with a tree (climbing, hiding, eating, etc.). Other species might â€˜categorizeâ€™ the tree differently based on what they can do with it. The human brain is essentially lazy (to conserve energy I guess). It tries to fit what it perceives into the existing categories it builds over the years. All these categories are formed by interacting with the environment in ways that our bodies can possibly interact. For example, do you have any categories for sonar navigation? But the bats do (although not in the same sense of "category" as we do) Psychological experiments suggest that when the brain perceives something, it goes through this evaluation process (whether you consciously realize it or not): 1. Can I eat it? 2. Can it eat me? 3. Can I mate with it? 4. Have I seen this before? So, we pick out the details in the perceptual stimuli biased by this evolved heuristic (for obvious reasons). If the answer to 4 is in the negative, the brain starts evaluating what the body can do with whatever caused the stimuli. It later stores the evaluation as a category in memory for subsequent recognition and a shortcut to action. While I donâ€™t have sufficient knowledge to discuss the more controversial part, some argue (e.g. George Lackoff) that our propositional logic (and mathematics) is built in exactly the same fashion. I totally subscribe to that view even though I have no proof of that. It just the sense I get from looking at how other animals process information (they build nests and navigate without Piâ€™s and differential equations) and how our own science and culture changes as it evolves through time. DJP

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 08/12/08 - 04:37 PM:	#6
Well, we are bodies. And we never find cognition floating around outside of bodies. So cognition is embodied. Being so, cognition is limited by the physical structure of body and its brain. Anything we wish to comprehend must fall within the scope of these limitations. It may be that our limitations are sufficiently severe that our cognition will not have the ability to penetrate everything that we would wish to know. But it would be interesting to discover how our evolutionary history and physical structure shape and limit our thinking. Pehaps by understanding these limitations we can take them into consideration when thinking and, to some small extent, partially overcome them. So, it sounds to me that you have an interesting topic here. Do you have any specific examples of how our bodily structure shapes our cognition?
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Jehu
Revealer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 883

Posted 08/12/08 - 05:17 PM:	#7
DPJ wrote: While I donâ€™t have sufficient knowledge to discuss the more controversial part, some argue (e.g. George Lackoff) that our propositional logic (and mathematics) is built in exactly the same fashion. I totally subscribe to that view even though I have no proof of that. A most interesting subject. In his book, â€œThe Problems of Philosophyâ€, Bertrand Russell said of the â€˜Three Laws of Thoughtâ€™ â€œâ€¦ what is important, is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.â€ According to Russell then, if one is to think â€˜trulyâ€™, then the development of oneâ€™s thoughts about a thing must be governed by the same law or laws that govern the development of the thing itself. The astonishing implication of Russellâ€™s statement, if it is true, is that the laws of reason and the laws of causality are, in some fundamental sense, one and the same. And if this is the case, what then can this tell us with respect to the nature of reality. That is to say, if the material world unfolds in accordance with the laws of thought, does this not lend considerable weight to the idealistâ€™s claim that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant?
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

astaire1
Dancing WuLi Master

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Location: France

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 890

Posted 08/13/08 - 12:57 AM:	#8
Hi DJPavel, DJPavel wrote: Psychological experiments suggest that when the brain perceives something, it goes through this evaluation process (whether you consciously realize it or not): 1. Can I eat it? 2. Can it eat me? 3. Can I mate with it? 4. Have I seen this before? Fascinating ! Now I need Pinker (or somebody) to write a book listing the other 200 questions that follow the first 4. Are there 200 or 2000. Which ones are universal across most species ? cheers Astaire
Heaven, I'm in heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak. And I seem to find the happiness I seek. When we're out together dancing cheek to cheek.

DJPavel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2007

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 394

Posted 08/14/08 - 12:25 AM:	#9
Crow wrote: So, it sounds to me that you have an interesting topic here. Do you have any specific examples of how our bodily structure shapes our cognition? I think so too. Since I'm new to this school of thought, I'd rather not speak too much on what has been done in the field. But let me offer you this brain podcast though, which I thought was very interesting. It has some examples you ask about. I loved the "image schemas" talk. I consider those to be what we call "truths". Let me know if you find anything on the topic, so we can speculate and philosophize about it An interview with Art Glenberg (PhD Cognitive Psychology): http://media.libsyn.com/media/brai...-brainscience-Glenberg.mp3 DJP

False_Prophet
~True Prophet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 57

Posted 08/18/08 - 06:49 PM:	#10
One problem I find with Embodied Cognition, as good of a theory I think it is, doesn't it assume that there is a "body" in the first place? (Back to the old Descartes/Hume stuff, is it something that has thoughts or a collection of thoughts?)I mean if it is to be any decent philosophy, I think it needs a solid foundation first; in this case to show that thinking or "cognition" is necessarily embodied. Otherwise, from what I gather, it would fall into the trap of circularity. In this case, using our bodies(or senses more specifically) to find out about our bodies(since "cognition" in this case is of the body just like senses are). Edited by False_Prophet on 08/18/08 - 07:06 PM
No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.-Nietzchizzle Embodied Awesomeness

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.