Myrto Mylopoulos

Much recent work elucidates different types of representational format, and ways that aspects of perception and cognition may be formatted. Our paper targets an underexplored topic: the format of motor representations, the psychological states that serve as the primary causal link between an agent’s immediate intention to act and their subsequent behaviour. In section 2, we situate motor representations within the context of processes of motor planning and motor control. In section 3, we discuss key differences between symbolic and analog representational format types. In section 4, we argue that there is evidence indicating that motor representations show a core marker of analog formatting. In section 5, we argue that motor representations show core markers of symbolic formatting. In section 6, we characterize motor representations as an interesting form of hybrid representation. In a slogan, motor representation is a symbolic scheme that utilizes analog representations as cognitive tools. We then highlight several open questions this characterization raises and note how it may impact a range of philosophical debates, such as those pertaining to the relationship between propositional knowledge and skilled action guidance, the interface problem, and the issue of how to draw boundaries between central cognition and the motoric.

“What is the structure of thought?” is as central a question as any in cognitive science. A classic answer to this question has appealed to a Language of Thought (LoT). We point to emerging research from disparate branches of the field that supports the LoT hypothesis, but also uncovers diversity in LoTs across cognitive systems, stages of development, and species. Our letter formulates open research questions for cognitive science concerning the varieties of rules and representations that underwrite various LoT-based systems and how these variations can help researchers taxonomize cognitive systems

One necessary condition on any adequate account of perception is clarity regarding whether unconscious perception exists. The issue is complicated, and the debate is growing in both philosophy and science. In this paper we consider the case for unconscious perception, offering three primary achievements. First, we offer a discussion of the underspecified notion of central coordinating agency, a notion that is critical for arguments that purportedly perceptual states are not attributable to the individual, and thus not genuinely perceptual. We develop an explication of what it is for a representational state to be available to central coordinating agency for guidance of behavior. Second, drawing on this explication, we place a more careful understanding of the attributability of a state to the individual in the context of a range of empirical work on vision-for-action, saccades, and skilled typing. The results place pressure on the skeptic about unconscious perception. Third, reflecting upon broader philosophical themes running through debates about unconscious perception, we highlight how our discussion places pressure on the view that perception is a manifest kind, rather than a natural kind. In doing so, we resist the tempting complaint that the debate about unconscious perception is merely verbal.