Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:06:15.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human tool cognition relies on teleology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Mikołaj Hernik Open the ORCID record for Mikołaj Hernik [Opens in a new window]
Mikołaj Hernik*
Affiliation:
UiT The Arctic University of Norway, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Osiurak and Reynaud's account of human tool cognition misses key element: human capacity for functional representations and teleological inferences. I argue that the teleofunctional approach accounts better for some features of human tool cognition and points to a viable candidate for the cognitive “difference-maker” behind human technological success.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e167
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Casler, K. & Kelemen, D. (2007) Reasoning about artifacts at 24 months: The developing teleo-functional stance. Cognition 103(1):120–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. (2007) ‘Obsessed with goals’: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica 124(1):60–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, D. C. (1990) The interpretation of texts, people and other artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50:177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G. & Csibra, G. (2003) Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naıve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(7):287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G. & Csibra, G. (2006) Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. In: Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction, eds. Enfield, N. J. & Levenson, S. C., pp. 229–55. Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
German, T. P. & Barrett, H. C. (2005) Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science 16(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T., Frick, A., Hirata, S., Adachi, I. & Biro, D. (2019) Spontaneous categorization of tools based on observation in children and chimpanzees. Scientific Reports 9(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernik, M. & Csibra, G. (2009) Functional understanding facilitates learning about tools in human children. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 19(1):34–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernik, M. & Csibra, G. (2015) Infants learn enduring functions of novel tools from action demonstrations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 130:176–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelemen, D. & Rosset, E. (2009) The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition 111(1):138–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, S., Brooks, N. B. & Spelke, E. S. (2019) Origins of the concepts cause, cost, and goal in prereaching infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(36):17747–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulcahy, N. J. & Call, J. (2006) Apes save tools for future use. Science (New York, N.Y.) 312(5776):1038–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochat, M. J., Serra, E., Fadiga, L. & Gallese, V. (2008) The evolution of social cognition: Goal familiarity shapes monkeys’ action understanding. Current Biology 18(3):227–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D. & Nichols, S. (2019) Teleological essentialism. Cognitive Science 43(4):e12725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southgate, V. & Csibra, G. (2009) Inferring the outcome of an ongoing novel action at 13 months. Developmental Psychology 45(6):1794–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talanquer, V. (2007) Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education 29(7):853–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar