Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T22:20:54.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Holism without Tears: Local and Global Effects in Cognitive Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ron McClamrock
Ron McClamrock*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The suggestion that cognition is holistic has become a prominent criticism of optimism about the prospects for cognitive science. This paper argues that the standard motivation for this holism, that of epistemological holism, does not justify this pessimism. An illustration is given of how the effects of epistemological holism on perception are compatible with the view that perceptual processes are highly modular. A suggestion for generalizing this idea to conceptual cognitive processing is made, and an account of the holists' failure is offered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 258 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

REFERENCES

Block, N. (1986), “Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology”, in P. French, T. Uehling, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Mind. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 10, pp. 615–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, L. A., and Shepard, R. N. (1973), “Chronometric Studies of the Rotation of Mental Images”, in W. G. Chase (ed.), Visual Information Processing. New York: Academic Press, pp. 75–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1983), The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1984), “Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of AI”, in C. Hookway (ed.), Minds, Machines, and Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 129–152.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (1979), What Computers Can't Do, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983), The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. (1985), “Special Purpose Computation: All Is Not One”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8: 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1985), “Fodor's Holism”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8: 15–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R. L. (1966), Eye and Brain. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Haugeland, J. (1978), “The Nature and Plausibility of Cognitivism”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2: 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1982), “Judgements of and by Representativeness”, in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982), Vision: A Computational Approach. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., and Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971), “Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words: Evidence of a Dependence between Retrieval Operations”, Journal of Experimental Psychology 90: 227–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pylyshyn, Z. (1984), Computation and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1981), “The Architecture of Complexity”, in H. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 193–229.Google Scholar