Noë on Clark

Noë’s Trends in Cognitive Sciences review “Extending our view of mind” of Clark’s Supersizing the Mind is now online (pay-per-view unless of course your university subscribes).

V. S. Ramachandran

VS

 

Speaking of homuncularity there is a nice profile of V. S. Ramachandran in the latest issue of The New Yorker (sorry it’s by subscription only). It’s a far superior piece than the one done on the Churchlands a while back. Beyond the areas that have made V.S. so well-known (synesthesia, phantom limb syndrome), several interesting topics (at least for me) that are covered include:

1. I had no idea that V. S. worked with (the very amusing) Richard Gregory

2. Penfield homunculus related to phantom limb syndrome

3. Picking up the Parma discoveries of mirror neurons in monkeys and seeing if he could, through non-evasive techniques, find them in humans.

In case you haven’t seen V.S in action, here is a video of him I posted some time back. 

Homuncularity

Courtesy of the Consortium on Cognitive Science Instruction I bring you a brief clip of the superbly rendered notion of the homunculus from the film Men in Black. 

Sensory_and_motor_homunculi

NEPSA Oakeshott Panel

For a long time the preeminent Oakeshott scholar in New England has been Paul Franco: this hasn’t changed. Fortunately, Paul’s presence has attracted other Oakeshott experts. Once again, Maine has proved to be an unlikely place for Oakeshott. As it happens, the New England Political Science Association’s (NEPSA) annual meeting took place in Portland with an Oakeshott panel – Theory: Michael Oakeshott and Modernity. It was very gratifying to come across three talented young scholars who come to the material from very distinctive angles. They fielded comments with immense poise and grace – these are names to look out for.  

The Chair and Discussant was my co-editor Paul Franco, Bowdoin College

Papers:

Conor Williams, Georgetown University
Michael Oakeshott’s Anti-Foundationalism: Solidarity and Embededness

Matthew Sitman, University of Virginia
Towers of Babel: Michael Oakeshott, Reinhold Niebuhr, and the Theological Defense of Modernity

James Poulos, Georgetown University
The Domesticated Animal? Beastly Displacement in the Politics of Oakeshott and Rorty

Mind and Behavior: Autumn 2008

The latest issue of The Journal of Mind and Behavior is now available. I especially want to bring your attention to the Critical Notice on Fred Adams’ and Ken Aizawa’s The Bounds of Cognition, a review essay superbly executed by Justin Fisher. Requests for reprints should be sent to:

Professor Justin C. Fisher, Department of Philosophy, Hyer Hall 207, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750142, Dallas, Texas 75275

Email

Intro:

Fred Adams and Kenneth Aizawa have long been the loyal opposition in the debate about extended cognition. Contemporary humans regularly use external devices to process information. Many of us store telephone numbers in our cell phones rather than our brains. Alzheimer’s patients use trusted notebooks to store all kinds of information (Clark and Chalmers, 1998). Expert Scrabble players continually reorganize their letters to more quickly see possible words they might play (Kirsh, 1995). Fans of extended cognition have held that the information processing performed partly within such external devices is enough like traditional cases of cognitive processing that it also deserves to be called “cognitive processing.” Adams and Aizawa have been two key figures to stand against this tide, arguing that we should instead view these as mere cases of external tool use, and that, at least for the time being, we should reserve the term “cognitive processing” for processes that occur inside creatures’ heads. The Bounds of Cognition compiles and updates Adams and Aizawa’s attempts to defend against this tide, and it gives the authors the opportunity to go on the offensive themselves, and give careful arguments for why we should stick to their more conservative construal of “cognitive processing.” This book does very well to give the reader a thorough overview of the state of play in the debate over extended cognition. As a consequence, the present paper is as much a critical commentary on the whole debate as it is a review of the book itself.

Human nature and war

Here is NEI Director, David Livingstone Smith’s recent SUNY New Paltz lecture entitled “The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origin of War.” David is one of the leading experts in this field – really worth checking out.

Philanthropy

One of my abiding interests is in philanthropy having worked within the non-profit world and as an external consultant to non-profits. There is a growing literature on the idea of philanthropy  – philosophical and emprical – that is most fascinating. The best example of this is edited by Lenore Ealy entitled Conversations on Philanthropy: An Interdisciplinary Series of Reflections and Research.  Some working papers are also available online. There is much more to the notion of philanthropy than Guidestar! Indeed, in preparation for a symposium on philanthropy that I’ll be attending shortly, I’m reading Molière’s The Miser, a Comedy and selections from Amy Kass (ed.) The Perfect Gift: The Philanthropic Imagination in Poetry and Prose. 

New England Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Studies

Check out the New England Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Studies iTunes U site. Click the launch bar: once it loads click the NEI box and at the bottom right hand side of the first category, click the box that looks like this:

itunesthumb

You will find

Ruth Garrett Millikan’s recent lecture.

Richard Wrangham

Paul Roscoe

A Smorgasbord of “Situated” Projects

There is an excellent collection of papers comprising the latest issue of Topoi (Volume 28, Number 1 / March, 2009). I assume that because of the introduction “Mind Embodied, Embedded, Enacted: One Church or Many?” this issue was pulled together by Julian Kiverstein and Andy Clark. They set up the issue by posing the following two questions, questions that I’ve been wrestling with of late given the issue I’m currently pulling together:

[w]hat, if anything, forms the deep theoretical core of the embodied, embedded approach? Equally importantly, we may ask to what extent the various projects pursued under the single umbrella are in fact harmonious?