Zsuzsanna Kondor

Various theories suggest conscious phenomena are based exclusively on brain activity, while others regard them as a result of the interaction between embodied agents and their environment. In this paper, I will consider whether this divergence entails the acceptance of the fact that different theories can be applied in different scales (as in the case of physics), or if they are reconcilable. I will suggest that investigating how the term representation is used can reveal some hints, building upon which we can bridge the gulf between the two poles in the long run. In my argumentation I will rely on some earlier philosophical insights, such as those of Descartes, James, Wittgenstein and Merleau-Ponty, as well as research based on global workspace theory, and the conceptions of embodied and enacted cognition. I will suggest that within a wider horizon of investigation, the ambiguity as regards the term representation will decrease.

Enacting Images is devoted to images as they can mobilize cognition and theorizing. Though we can speak of a pictorial turn now that images have become a distinct and full-fledged topic of investigation, some may continue to cling to the impression that images should still be considered within a fundamentally representationalist framework. As an alternative, the enactive approach provides a conceptual setup within which images, beyond their informational, immersive, and aesthetic power, can be considered as being the manifestations of a new epistemic access to the world. The present volume is a collection of essays that reflectively investigate the theoretical prerequisites, scope, and limits of enactive approach.

Although scientific practice sometimes encounters philosophical dif- ficulties, it cannot shoulder the burden of resolving them. This can lead to controversies. An unavoidable difficulty is rooted in the linguistic attitude, i.e., in the fact that to a considerable extent we express our thoughts in words. I will attempt to illuminate some important characteristics of linguistic expres- sion which lead to paradoxical situations, identifiable thanks to philosophy. In my argument, I will investigate how the notion of consciousness has altered over the course of philosophical investigation and how it relates to recent scientific practice. In conclusion, I will focus on a few recent so-called radical positions in philosophy with regard to a framework within which consciousness and more generally mental phenomena can be regarded in a new light, as well as on the barriers we face when trying to unify scientific results.

It may strike some as incongruous to discuss both new media and Heidegger in a single article. Heidegger died in 1976, so he can hardly be considered as having first-hand experience with so-called new media. He is best known for his endeavour of destructing traditional Western metaphysics, and for an organic extension of this destruction, his philosophy of technology. He explicitly touches upon two communications-oriented technological inventions: the radio and the typewriter. In both cases, his criticism is quite obvious. Despite all this, some of his considerations make it worthwhile to further investigating his criticism. I will start with an overview of the longstanding critical attitude toward any new media, and I will attempt to define some key terms with regard to old and new media. Then I will outline the philosophical background of the Heideggerian criticism, and investigate the lessons we can learn from Heidegger

Accepting the idea that the mental representations of concepts, diagrams, relations, plans, etc., are thought-shapers, I suggest going a bit further. Any kind of representation, be it mental or public, i.e., accessible to others, bears thought-shaping potential, albeit not in the same manner. Just as the idea of embodied cognition takes into consideration environmental facilities and obstacles, I suggest investigating thought processes in a broader context, i.e., placing thought-shapers in the context of their formation. I propose that the elements of the above mentioned definition of thought-shapers are built upon a structure that consists of representational skills, means, and institutions. In accordance with the idea of embeddedness and enactment, the need for communication and the given cognitive and physical aptitudes result in different kinds of expression, i.e., different kinds of representations available to others. When an expressional mode solidifies, it opens up new possibilities and limitations. I propose that mundane, almost unnoticeable affordances and their accompanying limits do shape our thoughts thoroughly. In my argument for the thought-shaper potential of the generative technique of public representations, I will delineate a historical overview of representational means in tandem with the main characteristics of different eras’ crucial ideals and patterns of reasoning. I will close the historical overview with a terminological excursion exploring how publicly available representation and mental representation relate to each other and the kinds of ambiguities that accompany the latter term’s use. Accordingly, embedding thought-shapers, I will outline the evolution of different representational techniques and skills. Then, because language is a decisive representational means, I will investigate its orientating and distortive potential. I will rely on some of Bergson’s lesser-known remarks. I will illuminate how ocular-centrism was able to be a decisive metaphor in science and philosophy for long centuries, until recently even. In conclusion, as a case study, I will illuminate how the term “mental representation” as a highly abstract term facilitates and at the same time hinders philosophical and scientific inquiry.

Casting a glance at philosophical inquiries of the last decades, with regard to human cognition (in a broad sense), we are witnesses to turns one after the other. The settings were based on the change of scope and perspective of investigations. The so-called linguistic turn refers to “the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language or by understanding more about the language we presently use”. In the 90s, W. J. T. Mitchell coined the phrase pictorial turn, calling attention to the fact that “pictures form a point of peculiar friction and discomfort across a broad range of intellectual inquiry”. In order to eliminate this intellectual discomfort, Mitchell considers exploratory and explicatory approaches that focus on non-linguistic symbol systems and do not consider language as the only source of a significant paradigm regarding meaning. Recently, there has been a shift of emphasis regarding the basis of cognitive skills. This may be the next turn, a sensorimotor or activist one. Although this turn has massive roots in the past, and there is some controversy regarding whether it is fully reconcilable with various findings of cognitive neurology, this view seems to be capable of providing a framework within which the verbalist approach can cease to be the dominant view.

In the present paper, I will investigate how consciousness studies and theories of social cognition relate to each other, and suggest that despite the results of scientific research, both social cognition and consciousness can be better understood within a wider framework, i.e., not exclusively in terms of intra-cranial processes. I will attempt to illuminate the advantages of embracing embodied cognition in contrast with focusing exclusively on neural and/or representational mechanisms when consciousness and cognition are in question. In my argumentation, I will first show the divergence of consciousness- and cognitive-theories on the one hand, and delineate attempts to reconcile these two branches of investigation, on the other hand. Then I will relate the model of cognitive phylogeny, as regards social cognition, and the models of the evolution of consciousness as it emerged in scientific literature. In conclusion, I will attempt to expose the advantages of widening the horizon of investigation towards embodied and enacted cognition.

In the present paper, I will investigate how language and the concepts we use can delude us when scientific theories suggest that abstraction, as a necessary condition of concepts, is rooted in anatomical structures of the brain, and that language as it expresses meaning is based on embodied cognition, i.e., language is deeply integrated into our physical structure. First, I will outline the characteristics of language and concepts that might provide ground for delusion. In so doing, I will rely on some ideas from Bergson, Wittgenstein, and Maturana. Then, I will delineate theories suggesting that the capability of abstraction is hardwired as Ramachandran explicates, and the meaning of linguistic expression is rooted in embodied cognition as Merleau-Ponty, and later, cognitive metaphor theory suggest. In conclusion, I will attempt to reconcile the seemingly conflicting views – language is deluding and hardwired at the same time – with the help of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological account.