Samuel C. Bellini-Leite

In the last thirty years, a relatively large group of cognitive scientists have begun characterising the mind in terms of two distinct, relatively autonomous systems. To account for paradoxes in empirical results of studies mainly on reasoning, Dual Process Theories were developed. Such Dual Process Theories generally agree that System 1 is rapid, automatic, parallel, and heuristic-based and System 2 is slow, capacity-demanding, sequential, and related to consciousness. While System 2 can still be decently understood from a traditional cognitivist approach, I will argue that it is essential for System 1 processing to be comprehended in an Embodied Embedded approach to Cognition

É com muita satisfação que apresentamos mais uma edição da Revista Kínesis. A presente edição é coroada com trabalhos de diversas instituições e centros de pesquisa em Filosofia do Brasil e alguns trabalhos do exterior. Publicamos, também, uma tradução e uma entrevista com o prof. Arley Ramos Moreno, professor da Unicamp, importante intelectual brasileiro nos estudos wittgensteinianos. Tem se tornado uma característica marcante da Kínesis a publicação de trabalhos de diversas instituições e centros de pós-graduação em Filosofia. A Revista tem recebido, ainda, em número crescente, trabalhos de doutores, pós-doutores e artigos do exterior. Essa característica reforça a convicção, já há algum tempo observada pelos seus editores, de que a Kínesis é hoje um dos principais veículos de publicação de trabalhos acadêmicos de pós-graduandos em Filosofia do Brasil. Nós editores nos orgulhamos muito disso, pois essa nossa convicção tem se mostrado presente a cada edição.

No estudo da racionalidade há um projeto normativo, o qual busca compreender o que significa raciocinar corretamente ou ser racional. O foco deste projeto é encontrar regras que ditem um padrão para o raciocínio ser avaliado. Há também um projeto descritivo, praticado por cientistas da cognição com abordagem empirista. Estes buscam descobrir de que forma as pessoas de fato raciocinam e descrever os mecanismos e processos responsáveis pelos padrões de raciocínio observado. Este artigo pretende expor alguns aspectos históricos de ambos os projetos e apresentar brevemente uma corrente teórica vinda do projeto descritivo com poder de propor uma nova forma de compreensão para aspectos normativos, as teorias de duplo processo.

Dual Process Theory is currently a popular theory for explaining why we show bounded rationality in reasoning and decision-making tasks. This theory proposes there must be a sharp distinction in thinking to explain two clusters of correlational features. One cluster describes a fast and intuitive process, while the other describes a slow and reflective one. A problem for this theory is identifying a common principle that binds these features together, explaining why they form a unity, the unity problem. To solve it, a hypothesis is developed combining embodied predictive processing with symbolic classical approaches. The hypothesis, simplified, states that Type 1 processes are bound together because they rely on embodied predictive processing whereas Type 2 processes form a unity because they are accomplished by symbolic classical cognition. To show that this is likely the case, the features of Dual Process Theory are discussed in relation to these frameworks.

Dual process theory proposes clusters of features that form two dichotomous groups in cognition. One standing internal issue is defining what the reference of these two dichotomous groups could be in the mind or brain. Does dual process theory speak of two systems, types, minds, modes, kinds or just metaphors? A particular common answer is that differences in clusters of features are evidence of different underlying systems, often called system 1 and system 2. However, the suggestion to abandon the ‘system’ terminology is now common in the literature, but the consequences of doing so need to be addressed. This work reviews and critically discusses previous suggestions.

The Global Workspace Theory (GWT) proposed by Bernard Baars (1988) along with Daniel Dennett’s (1991) Multiple Drafts Model (MDM) of consciousness are renowned cognitive theories of consciousness bearing similarities and differences. Although Dennett displays sympathy for GWT, his own MDM does not seem to be fully compatible with it. This work discusses this compatibility, by asking if GWT suffers from Daniel Dennett’s criticism of what he calls a “Cartesian Theater”. We identified in Dennett 10 requirements for avoiding the Cartesian Theater. We believe that some of these requirements are violated by GWT, but not all, hence there is partial incompatibility with MDM, and it is nonsense to answer if GWT is or is not a Cartesian Theater. However, by asking such question we conclude that the issues around this discussion involve fuzzy claims about degrees of consciousness and we show how the Neuro-Astroglial Interaction Model (NAIM) is fit for solving such conceptual issues.

In the last thirty years, a relatively large group of cognitive scientists have begun characterising the mind in terms of two distinct, relatively autonomous systems. To account for paradoxes in empirical results of studies mainly on reasoning, Dual Process Theories were developed. Such Dual Process Theories generally agree that System 1 is rapid, automatic, parallel, and heuristic-based and System 2 is slow, capacity-demanding, sequential, and related to consciousness. While System 2 can still be decently understood from a traditional cognitivist approach, I will argue that it is essential for System 1 processing to be comprehended in an Embodied Embedded approach to Cognition