concepts, perception, perceptual representation, dual process theories of mind
In this article we argue that the problem of the relationships between concepts and perception in cognitive science is blurred by the fact that the very notion of concept is rather confused. Since it is not always clear exactly what concepts are, it is not easy to say, for example, whether and in what measure concept possession involves entertaining and manipulating perceptual representations, whether concepts are entirely different from perceptual representations, and so on. As a paradigmatic example of this state of affairs, we will start by taking into consideration the distinction between conceptual and nonconceptual content. The analysis of such a distinction will lead us to the conclusion that concept is a heterogeneous notion. Then we shall take into account the so called dual process theories of mind; this approach also points to concepts being a heterogeneous phenomenon: different aspects of conceptual competence are likely to be ascribed to different types of systems. We conclude that without a clear specification of what concepts are, the problem of the relationships between concepts and perception is somewhat ill-posed.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Frixione, Marcello and Lieto, Antonio
"Concepts, Perception and the Dual Process Theories of Mind,"
Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication:
Baader, F., D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P. Patel-Schneider (eds.) 2010. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementations and Applications, 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L.W. 1985. Continuity of the conceptual system across species. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 305-311.
Bermudez, J.L. 1995. Nonconceptual content: from perceptual experience to subpersonal computational states. Mind and Language, 10, 333-369. Reprinted in Gunther 2003.
Bermudez, J.L. & Cahen, A. 2011. Nonconceptual mental content. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/
Brandom, R. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clark, A. 1994. Connectionism and cognitive flexibility. In T. Dartnall (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Creativity (pp. 63-79), Dorderecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reprinted in Gunther (2003).
Cussins, A. 1990. The connectionist construction of concepts. In M. Boden (Ed.), The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 380-400). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Partially reprinted in Gunther (2003).
Cussins, A. 2003. Postscript to the partial reprint of Cussins (1990). In Gunther (2003), 147-159.
Dell’Anna, A., Frixione, M. 2010. On the advantage (if any) and disadvantage of the conceptual/nonconceptual distinction for cognitive science. Minds & Machines, 20, 29-45.
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Evans, J.St.B.T. 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Frankish, K.E. (eds.) 2008. In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. New York, NY: Oxford UP.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Stanovich, K.E. 2013a. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223-241.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Stanovich, K.E. 2013b. Theory and Metatheory in the Study of Dual Processing: Reply to Comments, in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 263-271.
Fodor, J. 1981. The present status of the innateness controversy. In J. Fodor, Representations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. 1998. Concepts. Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Frixione, M. 2013. Concepts and Fat Plants: Non-Classical Categories, Typicality Effects, Ecological Constraints. Concepts – Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, ProtoSociology, 30, 152-166.
Frixione, M. & Lieto, A. 2012. Representing Concepts in Formal Ontologies. Compositionality vs. Typicality Effects. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 21(4), pp. 391–414
Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought, MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Gunther, Y.H. (Eds.) 2003. Essays on Nonconceptual Content. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jacob, P. & Jeannerod, M. 2003. Ways of Seeing. The Scopes and Limits of Visual Cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, pp. 49–81. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Machery, E. 2005. Concepts are not a natural kind. Philosophy of Science, 72, 444–467.
Machery, E. 2009. Doing without Concepts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Machery, E. 2011. Replies to Lombrozo, Piccinini, and Poirier and Beaulac. Dialogue, 50(1), 195-212.
Machery, E. 2014. Concepts: Investigating the Heterogeneity Hypothesis, in Justin Sytsma (eds.), Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Mind. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Machery, E., & Seppälä, S. 2010. Against hybrid theories of concepts. Anthropology & Philosophy, 10, 97–125.
McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miller, G.A. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, G.L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Osherson, D.N. & Smith E.E. 1981. On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35-58.
Peacocke, C. 1992. A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .
Piccinini, G. 2011. Two Kinds of Concept: Implicit and Explicit, Dialogue, 50(1), 179-193.
Raftopoulos, A. & Müller, V. 2006. The nonconceptual content of experience. Mind and Language, 27 (2), 187-219.
Sloman, S.A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
Spelke, E.S. 1994. Initial knowledge: six suggestions. Cognition, 50, 431-445.
Spelke, E.S. & Kinzler, K.D. 2007. Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96.
Stanovich, K. & West, R. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 23, 5: 645- 65.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. 1983. Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90 (4): 293–315.
Tye, M. 2006. Nonconceptual content, richness, and fineness of grain. In T. Szabo-Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.