Analysis Of The Article ' The Bounds Of Cognition '

Era II is known as the mind-body model. This model was developed in the 19th century. It is believed to have conscious thought that assist in healing the body. “"Psychosomatic" aspect: that emotions and feelings can influence the body's functions.” (Dossey, n.d., p. 1). With

I read the article, “Secrets of the Brain”, found in the February 2014 issue of National Geographic written by Carl Zimmer. I chose this subject because I have been fascinated with the brain and how it works. The research of the brain has been ongoing for many centuries now. The history in this article is interesting. It explained how scientists used to understand the brain and its inner workings. For example, “in the ancient world physicians believed that the brain was made of phlegm. Aristotle looked on it as a refrigerator, cooling of the fiery heart. From his time through the Renaissance, anatomists declared with great authority that our perceptions, emotions, reasoning, and actions were all the result of “animal spirits”—mysterious, unknowable vapors that swirled through cavities in our head and traveled through our bodies.” (Zimmer, p. 38)

The idea that mental states are non-reducible properties of brain states is the central tenant of a theory of mind called property dualism. However, before we can assess the theory we must be aware that the question assumes the existence of mental states and as such we cannot answer this question from some perspectives (e.g. eliminative materialism)

Thesis: The mind-body problem arises because of the lack of evidence when looking for a specific explanation of the interaction of mental and physical states, and the origin and even existence of them.

In 1983 Jerry Fodor opened the introduction to his new research of “Modularity of mind” with the phrase; “Behavior is organized, but the organization of behavior is merely derivative”. This meaning that behaviors are simply imitations, never original nor created. Fodor created a theory of how the mind was structured and how would perform. He studied the architecture of mind in modules; a term that will describe that the mind had different specific structures that had precise purposes. Jesse J. Prinz just like Fodor was a philosopher who was in opposition of the “Modularity of the mind” theory. This essay will have as a purpose to create an argument on the explanation and disagreement that Prinz wrote cluster by cluster against the theory “Modularity of mind” in an article called “Is the mind really modular?”

Famous American anthropologist and social theorist Clyde Kluckholm , claims in one of his publication that “Every language is also a special way of looking at the world and interpreting experience concealed in the structure of language are a whole set of unconscious assumptions about the world and the life in it”(Writing logically, Thinking critically 7th edition P 35). Based on this theory, we can learn more

Linguistic relativity is the notion that language can affect our thought processes, and is often referred to as the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’, after the two linguists who brought the idea into the spotlight. Whorf writes how “Language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity” (1956:212), and I will explain how it is able to do so. In this essay I will argue that certain ways of mental categorization, spatial cognition and reality interpretation, based on the characteristics of our specific variety of language, influence our perception of the world. I will discuss how languages divide up nature differently, and

If there was an external linguistic stimulus that triggered the conceptualization of this idea, the process would begin with auditory comprehension in Wernicke’s area of the dominant hemisphere. This stimulus would arrive either from the primary auditory cortices through

Language is a cognitive function that most of us take for granted. It starts from early on, some say at conception, and it develops in complexity as we get older. It is an essential part of communication and without it its development would be greatly hindered. This natural process requires complex structures and reasoning, the bringing together of sounds and words to develop concrete ideas and thoughts. In this paper we will discuss the components of language and how it relates to cognitive processes.

Over many years, scientists and philosophers have asked the question: is there any difference in the mind and the brain? These genius minds have searched without sleep trying to figure out this question, but, the puzzles behind our consciousness remain unsolved and unreachable. Philosophers such as Peter Carruthers argue that the mind is the brain and that objections like those made by, philosopher, Frank Jackson, are based on a “conflation of know-how with knowing-that. Again, we are left with the question of whether or not the mind is the brain or if the mind is a completely separate entity in itself. In order to figure this, very difficult and confusing question out, an overview of some philosophical theories can be made, along with an

Despite scientific and technological advancement, over the last 40 years the phenomena of the mind still remains contested. As some favour the idea that the mind is held within the boundaries of flesh and bone, others favour the argument that the mind extends beyond. The Extended Mind thesis surpasses the both dualist and original externalist theories. Here I will observe Clark and Chalmers ‘The Extended Mind’ and their position of active externalism to seek clarity in the question, does the mind extend beyond the brain, skin and skull? I argue that the mind is hybrid in form, as it does extend beyond the skin and skull through technological devices. By exploring the arguments for and against The Extended Mind thesis I suggest Clark and Chalmers are correct in their theory.

Cognitive phenomenology is the theory that in our minds there are greater, non-sensory thoughts occurring. Though most people accept sensory phenomenology, many question or deny the idea of cognitive phenomenology. In this essay, I will argue that there is such a thing as cognitive thinking that is completely unrelated to our regular senses. I will discuss the theories and arguments suggested by Strawson, and Bayne and Montague and also provide objections given by Prinz and respond to these objections. With this theory, I plan to argue that cognitive phenomenology is separate and distinct and can occur independently of our senses.

The mind is both rational and consciously aware in situations that demand a reactive response. It acts as a control system that communicates between the external world and the spiritual being, allowing reasoning to take play. For years, philosophers have hypothesized ways to identify the minds function and capabilities. Causing both controversy and accord, these philosophers center their theories on rationalism and take a methodical approach towards understanding the complexity of the mind.

It is generally recognized that language is a "vehicle for the expression or exchanging of thoughts, concepts, knowledge, and information as well as the fixing and transmission of experience and knowledge."(Bussmann, 1996: 253)

I will refrain from using ‘language’, and will use instead ‘Faculty of Language’ (henceforth, FL) to refer to language as a biologically seated capacity that evolved in human phylogeny. I will briefly characterize its architecture, for it is such an architecture that has to be explained evolutionarily. From the view of mental architecture, FL is a bridge faculty, which connects two different systems: the Articulatory-Perceptual system (henceforth, A-P), in charge of the workings of our visual, oral, gestural and auditory activities, and the Conceptual-Intentional system, (henceforth-I), responsible for the production of intentional thoughts and attitudes on and about the world. Both capacities are independent: on the one hand, not every thought needs to be externalized; on the other, we can produce sounds without any associated meaning.