Las representaciones conceptuales en la ciencia cognitiva


Resumen


Resumen: En el marco de la ciencia cognitiva se ha polemizado acerca de la manera en la que el enfoque enraizado de la cognición pueda compatibilizarse con al enfoque clásico con el fin de explicar nuestras capacidades conceptuales. Sin embargo este debate metodológico no ha sido acompañado de una elucidación de la noción de “representación conceptual” tal como venía siendo entendida al menos en la filosofía y psicología cognitivas. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar en que consiste una representación conceptual con el fin de aportar claridad al debate sobre las capacidades conceptuales enraizadas. Desarrollaré y evaluaré la idea de que una representación es conceptual si puede combinarse sistemáticamente para formar nuevas estructuras representacionales y si se puede utilizar en tareas psicológicas con independencia del estímulo.


Abstract: In cognitive science, it is an open debate whether grounded cognition might be compatible with traditional views of cognition. However, as far as I am aware, this methodological debate has not been accompanied by an elucidation of the notion of “conceptual representation” as it has been understood in philosophy and cognitive psychology. The aim of this paper is to offer an elucidation of this sort. I will develop and evaluate the idea that a representation is conceptual when it can be systematically combined to form new representational structures and when it can be used in psychological tasks regardless of the stimulus.


Palabras clave: capacidades conceptuales, sistematicidad, independencia del estímulo, cognición enraizada, psicología cognitiva.


Keywords: conceptual abilities, sistematicity, independence of stimulus, grounded cognition, cognitive psychology.


Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Adams y Campbell 1999, “Modaliy and Abstract Concepts”, Behavioral and brain sciences 22: 577-660.

Barsalou, L. W. 1999a, “Perceptual Symbol System”, Behavioral and brain sciences 22: 577-660.

Barsalou, L. W. 1999b, “Perceptions of Perceptual Symbols”, Behavioral and brain sciences 22 (4).

Barsalou, L. W. 2008, “Grounded Cognition”, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59: 617-45.

Barsalou, L. W. 2010, “Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future”, Topics in Cognitive Science 2: 716-24.

Barsalou, L. W. 2016, “On Staying Grounded and Avoiding Quixotic Dead Ends”, Psychon Bull Rev 23: 1122-42.

Barsalou, L. W. et al. 2007, “Cognition as Coordinated Non-cognition”, Cognitive Processing 8: 79-91

Barsalou, L. W. 1999, “Perceptual Symbol Systems”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577-660.

Beck, J. 2012, “The Generality Constraint and the Structure of Thought”, Mind 121(483): 563-600. 

Bermúdez, J. L. 2003, Thinking Without Words, Oxford, OUP.

Braine, M. D. S.; Reiser, B. J. y Rumain B. 1984, “Some empirical justification for a theory of natural propositional reasoning”, G. H. Bower (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Orlando, Academic Press.

Camp, E. 2009, “Putting Thoughts to Work: Concepts, Systematicity, and Stimulus-Independence”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 2: 275-311.

Camp, E. 2004, “The Generality Constraint: Nonsense and Categorial Restrictions”, Philosophical Quarterly 54: 209-31.

Carruthers, P. 2003, “Thinking in Language? Evolution and a Modularist Possibility”, P. Carruthers y J. Boucher (ed.), Language and Thought, Cambridge, CUP.

Chomsky, N. 1995, El programa minimalista, Madrid, Alianza.

Clapp, L. 2010, “Is even Thought Compositional?”, Philosophical Studies 10.1007/s11098-010-9649-2, Online First.

Conchiglia, G.; Della Rocca, G. y Grossi, D. 2007, “On a Peculiar Environmental Dependency Syndrome in a Case with Frontal-Temporal Damage: Zelig-like Syndrome”, Neurocase 13: 1-5.

Davies, M. 1998, “Language, thought and the language of thought (Aunty’s own argument revisited)”, P. Carruthers y J. Boucher (ed.) Language and Thought. Cambridge, CUP.34 

Dove, G. O. 2008, “Beyond Perceptual Symbols: a Call for Representational Pluralism”, Cognition 110: 412-31.

Ellis, A. W. y Young, A. W. 1992, Neuropsicología cognitiva humana, Barcelona, Masson.

Estes, W. K. 1994, Classification and cognition, Oxford, OUP.

Evans, G. 1982, Varieties of Reference, Oxford, OUP.

Fara, M. 2006, “Dispositions”, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (edición primavera de 2006), E. N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dispositions/. 

Fodor. J. 2008, LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited, Oxford, OUP.

Fodor, J. 2007, “The Revange of the Given”, B. P. McLaughlin y J. Cohen (ed.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of mind, Oxford, Blackwell.

Fodor, J. 2001, “Language, Thought and Compositionality”, Mind and Language 16: 1-15.

Fodor, J. 1998, Conceptos. Donde la ciencia cognitiva se equivocó, Barcelona, Gedisa.

Fodor, J. 1975, El lenguaje del pensamiento, Madrid, Alianza.

Fodor, J. y Pylyshyn, Z. W. 1988, “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: a Critical Analysis”, C. McDonald y G. McDonald (ed.) (1995), Connectionism, MA, Blackwell.

Frege, G. 1892, “On Sense and Reference”, P. Geach y M. Black (ed.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford, OUP (1966).

Gentner, D. 1983, “Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy”, Cognitive Science 7: 155-70

Goldinger, S. D.; Papesh, M. H.; Barnhart, A. S.; Hansen, W. A. y Hout, M. C. 2016, “The poverty of embodied cognition”, Psychon Bull Rev 23: 959-78.

Greene, J. D. 2009, “Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 581-4.

Johnson, M. 2018, “The Embodiment of Language”, Newen, A.; De Bruin, L. y Gallagher, S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition, Oxford, OUP.

Laurence, S. y Margolis, S. (ed.) 1999, Concepts. Core Readings, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Lhermitte, M. D. 1986, “Human autonomy and the frontal lobes. Part II: Patient behavior in complex and social situations: The “environmental dependency syndrome”, Annals of Neurology 19: 335-43.

Louwersen, M. 2012, “Symbol Indeterminacy in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition”, Topics in Cognitive Science 3: 273-302. 

Machery, E. 2009, Doing Without Concepts, Nueva York, OUP. 

Mahon, B. Z. 2015, “What is embodied about cognition?”, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 420-9.

Martin, A. 2016, “GRAPES—Grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain”, Psychon Bull Rev 23: 979-90.

Millikan, R. 2000, On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts, Cambridge, CUP.

Monti, M.; Lawrence, M. y Osherson, D. 2009, “The Boundaries of Language and Thought in Deductive Inferences”, PNAS 106, 125554-9.

Pecher, D. 2013, “The Perceptual Representation of Mental Categories”, D. Reisberg (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, Oxford, OUP.

Piccinini, G. y Scott, S. 2006, “Splitting Concepts”, Philosophy of Science 73: 390-409.

Prinz, J. 2004, Gut Reactions. A Perceptual Theory of Emotions, Oxford, OUP.

Prinz, J. 2002, Furnishing the Mind. Concepts and their Perceptual Basis, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Rehder, B. 2003, “A causal-model theory of conceptual representation and categorization”, Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29: 1141-59.

Rosh, E. 1999, “Principles of Categorization”, Laurence, S. y Margolis, E. (ed.), Concepts. Core Readings, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Rosh, E.; Mervis, C. B.; Gray, W. D.; Johnson, D. M. y Boyes-Braem, P. 1978, “Basic Objects in Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 8: 382-439.

Rossetti, Y.; Pisella. L. y Vighett, A. 2003, “Optic Ataxia Revisited”, Experimental Brain Research 153: 171-9.

Ryle, G. 1949, El concepto de lo mental, Buenos Aires, Paidós.

Smith, E. y Medin, D. L. 1981, Categories and Concepts, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Weber, A. y Vosgerau, G. 2018, “Critical Note”, Newen, A., De Bruin, L. y Gallagher, S. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition, Oxford, OUP.

Weiskopf, D. (ms.) “Concepts as a Functional Kind”.

Zwaan, R. 2014, “Embodiment and Language Comprehension: Reframing the Discussion”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18: 229-34.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.