Overcoming Deadlock: Scientific and Ethical Reasons to Embrace the Extended Mind Thesis
December 25, 2018 DOI: 10.2298/fid1804489v (opens in new tab) via Semantic Scholar
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe extended mind thesis claims that the mind is not confined to the brain and body but can be partly constituted by external tools. Critics contend that cognition is merely embedded in the environment, not constituted by it. This paper argues that normative scientific and ethical reasons favor the extended account over the embedded one.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Psychology Philosophy |
| Key finding | Argues that scientific and ethical normative reasons favor the extended account of the mind over the embedded account. |
Abstract
The extended mind thesis maintains that while minds may be centrallylocated in one’s brain-and-body, they are sometimes partly constitutedby tools in our environment. Critics argue that we have no reason tomove from the claim that cognition is embedded in the environment tothe stronger claim that cognition can be constituted by the environment.I will argue that there are normative reasons, both scientific and ethical,for preferring the extended account of the mind to the rival embeddedaccount.