Embodied and Embedded Cognition

[Reivax]

Some of you might be familiar with the connectionist approach to cognition which utilizes abstract and idealised artificial neural networks (ANNs) to replicate the underlying processes in the brain that give rise to intelligent behavior. This approach seems to solve many problems associated with a classicist model of cognition which suggests that our mind is actually a digital computer - in that it engages in syntactic manipulation of symbols with semantic properties. However, both computational theories of mind have been challenged and more recently, from around the 80's onward there has been a dramatic rise in popularity toward an embodied view of cognition. The embodied mind thesis states that cognition depends on not only the brain, but also the body:

Embodiment Thesis: Many features of cognition are embodied in that they are deeply dependent upon characteristics of the physical body of an agent, such that the agent's beyond-the-brain body plays a significant causal role, or a physically constitutive role, in that agent's cognitive processing.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/#SomHisAncForEmbCogSci

Such an idea is distinct from, but related to embedded cognition which posits that cognition is not only dependent on the brain and body, but also the environment. An example of this could include using our hands and arms to create gestures, which not only convey information, but facilitate language processing. Or perhaps using pen and paper or a calculator to solve a math problem.

Both embodied cognition and embedded cognition are often taken together for an embodied embedded approach to cognitive science.

So what do we think about embodied and embedded cognition in relation to their predecessors? Are they better approaches to cognition in general?

It is important to note that there are those who do not see these approaches as being mutually exclusive, but it seems like extended mind theorists are divided on this, with some claiming that we should abandon other theoretical frameworks altogether.

Thanks in advance!

 

[marplots]

I don't see them as different than a "seeded" connectionist approach. That's where I think the magic resides.

 

[Reivax]

Could you please expand marplots? I am honestly not sure if you are making a joke about the terms 'embedded' and 'embodied' when you mention a 'seeded connectionist approach', or if you are actually describing a particular connectionist approach.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I heard a TED talk recently (Ramachandran?) where the "self" was defined as a conceptual map of the body within the brain. Sounds like it was influenced by this line of thought.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Some of you might be familiar with the connectionist approach to cognition which utilizes abstract and idealised artificial neural networks (ANNs) to replicate the underlying processes in the brain that give rise to intelligent behavior. This approach seems to solve many problems associated with a classicist model of cognition which suggests that our mind is actually a digital computer - in that it engages in syntactic manipulation of symbols with semantic properties. However, both computational theories of mind have been challenged and more recently, from around the 80's onward there has been a dramatic rise in popularity toward an embodied view of cognition.

Perhaps, at long last, we will finally break free of the tendency to construct a model of the brain that is strikingly similar to whatever our most advanced technology is at the time. It used to be telephone switchboards, then it was computers. It's encouraging to see that they're looking at models based on what we actually observe, rather than using analogies.

 

[Reivax]

I heard a TED talk recently (Ramachandran?) where the "self" was defined as a conceptual map of the body within the brain. Sounds like it was influenced by this line of thought.

This sounds interesting, is this the video you are referring to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E

The video talks about mirror neurons which are viewed as evidence for the embodied position. Because if we see someone extending their arm, the same neurons responsible for that extension in them, fire in us.

This said, there is a lot of ambiguity about their function and operation.