Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/257636892
CITATIONS READS
22 127
1 author:
Michael Kirchhoff
University of Wollongong
29 PUBLICATIONS 248 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Kirchhoff on 19 July 2016.
Abstract This paper explores several paths a distinctive third wave of extended
cognition might take. In so doing, I address a couple of shortcomings of first- and
second-wave extended cognition associated with a tendency to conceive of the
properties of internal and external processes as fixed and non-interchangeable. First,
in the domain of cognitive transformation, I argue that a problematic tendency of the
complementarity model is that it presupposes that socio-cultural resources augment
but do not significantly transform the brain’s representational capacities during
diachronic development. In this paper I show that there is available a much more
dynamical explanation—one taking the processes of the brain’s enculturation into
patterned practices as transforming the brain’s representational capacities. Second, in
the domain of cognitive assembly, I argue that another problematic tendency is an
individualistic notion of cognitive agency, since it overlooks the active contribution
of socio-cultural practices in the assembly process of extended cognitive systems. In
contrast to an individualistic notion of cognitive agency, I explore the idea that it is
possible to decentralize cognitive agency to include socio-cultural practices.
Introduction
In philosophy of mind and cognition, the model known as extended cognition (EC)
expresses the view that many of our genuinely cognitive processes are composed of
physical vehicles running on machinery distributed across parts of the brain, body,
and material–cultural environment (Clark 2011; Menary 2010a, b, c; Rowlands
2010; Sutton 2010; Wheeler 2010). My independent aim in this paper is to explore
M. D. Kirchhoff (*)
Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
e-mail: michael.kirchhoff@students.mq.edu.au
288 M.D. Kirchhoff
an issue that I do not believe has been pursued elsewhere in the literature on EC,
namely the relationship between EC and, what I shall call, the “fixed-properties view
of internal and external processes” (FP). Throughout this paper, I hope to show that
it is possible to move EC along both faithfully and fruitfully by downplaying this
tendency to treat the properties of the “internal” and “external” as fixed and instead
explore an alternative route to EC.
To get an understanding of FP, we can contrast FP with what I call the “dynamical
properties view” (DP). Unlike FP, DP holds that the plastic brain gets enculturated
through development in socio-cultural practices (Roepstorff et al. 2010, p. 1052).
This is the first part of DP. The second part is as follows. Unlike FP, DP does not
assume, when having to explain the integration/assembly of cognitive systems, that
the individual organism is the most active element. DP implies that the assembly of
cognitive systems is the result of richly dynamical and distributed elements, where
there is no collapse into individualism like in FP. To flesh out DP in more detail, I
focus on two domains.
The first of these domains is sometimes referred to as cognitive transforma-
tion (Menary 2010b), where I focus on the transformation of neuronal
representational capacities as a result of enculturation. To make sense of this, I
discuss three examples: (1) Näätänen et al.’s (1997) study on phoneme perception
suggesting a diachronically mediated re-shaping of certain cortical areas of the
brain by “the brain’s” participation in structured socio-cultural practices; (2)
Dehaene’s (2005) neuronal recycling hypothesis suggesting that our uniquely
human capacity for exact mathematical reasoning is partly biologically inherited
and partly a result of enculturation into socio-cultural practices; and (3) Wheeler’s
(2004) philosophical work on language and off-line cognition, where Wheeler
argues that the brain must “recapitulate” certain structural features of language in
order for humans to engage in off-line cognition. The second domain is the
construction of cognitive systems typically referred to as cognitive assembly
(Clark 2008; Hutchins 2008, 2011a; Kirchhoff and Newsome 2011; Sterelny
2010). I want to signpost a couple of important issues here. First, unlike
individualist approaches to cognitive assembly (Clark 2008), addressing cognitive
assembly via DP implies a non-individualistic conception of cognitive agency.
Second, unlike synchronic perspectives on cognitive assembly (Clark 2008), DP
aims to explain synchronic assembly (in part) from diachronic considerations.
Thus, in contrast to DP, FP is the view that the properties of biological processes
and the properties of socio-cultural processes remain non-interchangeable, both
diachronically and synchronically.
Nothing of what I have to say in this paper will undermine the credibility of the EC
research program, in the sense that what I shall critically explore are tendencies or
assumptions left unquestioned. Hence, I do not claim that there is a necessary
relationship between EC and FP. So, the more conservative aim is to establish that
leaving FP behind opens a space for interesting research on EC topics. Let that be
the first proviso. The second is that I shall not be arguing that EC in general is
committed to FP. First, I do not argue that parity-based arguments are committed to
Extended cognition and fixed properties 289
1998, p. 99), Wheeler (2010, 2011) conceives of the PP as the only viable route to
EC (Walter 2010, p. 286). Nevertheless, because first- and second-wave EC share a
commitment to complementarity, but do not equally share the endorsement of the PP,
I focus here on the PP. The PP stresses the following: “If we confront some task, a
part of the world functions as a process which, were it to go on in the head, we
would have no hesitation in accepting as part of the cognitive process, then that part
of the world is (for that time) part of the cognitive process.” (Clark and Chalmers
1998, p. 8; and reprinted in Clark 2008, p. 77). The PP focuses on functional
isomorphism of “inner” and “outer” processes. In support of the PP, Clark and
Chalmers developed the case of the neurobiologically impaired Otto and his
notebook. Otto is a victim of a mild form of Alzheimer’s disease. Over time, Otto
has written down useful information in his notebook in a similar way to storing
information in biological memory. According to Clark and Chalmers, because the
dispositional information in Otto’s notebook is functionally poised to guide action in
a functionally similar way as non-occurrent beliefs in biological memory, the
information in Otto’s notebook should be considered as cognitive belief-like states.
Importantly, the PP by itself is not meant as an argument for EC but rather to
encourage us to look at various cases of cognitive extension “behind a veil of
metabolic ignorance,” (Clark 2011, p. 449). Given this picture, then, the PP acts as a
kind of heuristic device (Menary 2010a, p. 5) designed to suspend what Clark calls
“biochauvinistic prejudice” (2008, p. 77).
integration (2006, p. 330). Sharing Sutton’s critical stance towards the PP, Menary
builds his case for second-wave EC on the manipulation thesis:
Following Sutton (2010), this paper explores what a third-wave version of EC might
look like. I take my starting point in the following specifications:
role is realized by an “internal” mechanism; (3) then ask the question, should we
count the “internal” mechanism in (2) as part of the cognitive system?; (4) if the
answer is yes, then (1) qualifies for cognitive inclusion. So, despite employed to
overcome any sharp separation between “inner” and “outer”—between “fluid
biology and stable culture” (Sutton 2006, p. 242)—the PP ends up privileging the
“internal” on matters of cognitive inclusion for the “external” (Di Paolo 2009, p. 10).
The relationship between what is “external” and what is “internal” to a cognitive
system is most certainly complicated; nonetheless, it is not at all clear that sticking to
the old “internal” and “external” distinction will be helpful in settling this debate.
Moreover, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the question of what is
supposed to be “internal” to a cognitive system and what is “external” is pitched at a
synchronic, individualist level, thereby encouraging an object-based view of
cognitive systems. If one acknowledges, as Hutchins does (1995, 2008, 2011a, b),
the socio-culturally distributed nature of cognitive systems and consequently of
cognitive agency (more on this in the “Cognitive assembly: EC, FP, and DP”
section), the criteria for what it means to be “internal” to a cognitive system become
even more opaque. EC, of course, can still pursue the all important boundary
inquiries into which processes, relations, systems, and mechanisms are cognitively
relevant. However, if Sutton is correct, EC should not presuppose any clear-cut
boundaries between “internal” and “external.”
This brings us to the second interesting feature, namely that third-wave EC deals with
“deformed and reformatted representations.” This idea of deformed and reformatted
representations takes third-wave EC’s focus on a decentralized and deterritorialized
cognitive science even further. What does Sutton means by this? One way to get a grip
on this allows me to comment critically on the complementarity framework endorsed by
Sutton himself. Building on Donald’s (1991) theory of engrams (biological memory
records) and exograms (culturally encoded public representations) as a signature mark
of complementarity, Sutton points out that exograms are often discrete, modality and
task independent, and much more durable than engrams. However, following
Hutchins, this distinction between two disparate (but complementary) representational
formats “has the unintended side effect of rendering cultural practices invisible.”
(2008, p. 2017) In line with the enactivist approach (Stewart et al. 2011), what makes
a material pattern into a representation is a process of enactment—of bringing forth of
meaning. Within this framework, cognition is an active embodied and heavily
embedded process (Hutchins 2011b, p. 429). Hence, to even engage with exograms as
representations, it is necessary to bodily engage “a material pattern as a memory
record” (Hutchins 2008, p. 2017) within structured and patterned socio-cultural
practices. Thus, exograms are not simply “memory records outside the brain” with
properties different from engrams; but rather, exograms are constantly reformatted
according to the non-symbolic features of physical materials, cultural norms for their
use, and embodied activities of individuals (Ingold 2000). There is a second way to
understand the framing of “deformed and reformatted representations,” and it is this I
shall pursue in depth in this paper. Instead of looking at the meshed composition of
exograms, Sutton’s framing encourages analysis on the effects of enculturation on the
plastic brain’s own representational capacities. I signpost this here, and nothing else,
since a large part of the “Cognitive transformation: EC, FP, and DP” section is devoted
to fleshing out the idea of the “enculturated brain.”
Extended cognition and fixed properties 293
The third, and final, suggestion in the above passage is the claim that third-wave
EC “dissolves individuals into peculiar loci of coordination and coalescence among
multiple structures media.” Echoing Latour (1999) and his decentralized notion of
agency, I understand this as a direct call to free EC from its present individualistic
tendencies and to do so by taking socio-cultural practices, and diachronic
contributions, seriously in addressing the issue of cognitive assembly and the
underlying notion of cognitive agency. In fact, on a DP-oriented third-wave EC,
cognitive assembly and agency are best understood as self-organizational processes
distributed across brains, bodies, people, norms, and socio-cultural practices and
structures—none of which have any analytical priority. However, driving assembly
is not the same as effecting a significant “internal” transformation. So, apparently
one can have DP-style assembly without DP-style transformation. I bring this worry
here in order to avoid confusion about FP in cognitive transformation and FP in
cognitive assembly. Generally, FP-style assumptions involve keeping boundaries
fixed and separate. In cognitive transformation, FP arises because of a tendency to
claim that the properties of “external” elements augment but do not transform the
psychological innards of the individual. In cognitive assembly, in contrast, FP comes
into play because of certain individualistic tendencies delegating all the causally
active roles to the organism, thereby deactivating the dynamical role of the
environment in co-driving cognitive assembly. Hence, FP is not only indicative of
a non-transformative view of representational capacities but also of prioritizing the
individual as the loci of coordination and control in cognitive assembly.
I begin this section with a version of cognitive transformation endorsing DP, namely
Menary’s (2010b) hypothesis of dual component process transformation. As I shall
unpack this hypothesis, it contains not two but three important elements. The first
implies an extension of the functional architecture by integration of new processing
nodes into the cognitive system. The second implies an enhancement of individual
cognitive abilities to engage in cognitive practices. According to Menary, the third,
and final, element is:
Imagine digging a hole in your garden. When asked about where the digging power
resides, how would you respond? Would you answer “in the spade,” or “in you”?
According the Clark, both answers are incorrect, since digging power is the product of a
larger coupled system. In the digging case, the point is that the spade makes an “ongoing
and complementary contribution to that made by [the] biological body,” and “in such a
case, [there is] no obvious sense in which I biologically replicate the essence of the
spade’s activity.” (Clark 2006, p. 292) An important step in Clark’s reasoning about
the transformatory role of language (and public symbols in general) is to view
language in analogy to the spade. Hence, on Clark’s view, understanding language
implies explaining the coordination dynamics between “internal” biological resources
and “external” non-biological resources, enabling language to “occupy a wonderfully
ambiguous position on any hybrid cognitive stage […], looking one moment like any
other piece of the biological equipment, and the next like a peculiar potent piece of
external cognitive scaffolding.” (2006, p. 293)
We can further substantiate the claim that there are FP tendencies in the
complementarity model via recourse to a brief summary of how Clark (1997,
2006, 2008) distances his view of the cognition-transforming role of language from
Dennett’s (1991, 1996) account of this issue. First, Clark agrees with Dennett on the
evolutionary dimension. It is certainly true that our human cognitive profile is
different from other non-linguistic primates—past and present. The point that both
Clark and Dennett endorse is that it does not follow that this difference amounts to
any profound and radical differences in underlying neural hardware. Rather, the
“idea is that some relatively small neural (or neural/bodily) difference was the source
that lit a kind of intellectual forest fire.” (Clark 2001, p. 151, 1997, p. 198; Dennett
1991, p. 219). The real disagreement between the two is on the developmental scale.
On Clark’s interpretation (one he himself admits is only tentative), Dennett’s view is
that developmental exposure to public language and symbol systems results in a
profound reorganization of the brain’s computational and representational profile, in
the sense that Dennett thinks that our largely innate and connectionist cognitive
architecture is transformed—by exposure to language—to simulate “something like
a serial logic engine […].” (Clark 1997, p. 197; Dennett 1991, p. 278) In contrast to
Dennett, Clark sees public language (and material symbols) as essentially external
cognitive tools “that complements but does not profoundly alter the brain’s own
basic modes of representation and computation.” (1997, p. 198; italics added)
“an unavoidable consequence of the basic logic of the [EC] paradigm.” (2004, p. 709)
This is an interesting argument in part because it shows DP-style considerations within
EC and in part because it is pitched against what I argue is Clark’s FP assumption on
cognitive transformation. As I shall reiterate this argument, it consists of the following
steps (Wheeler 2004, pp. 708–9):
Premises 4 and 5 carry the heaviest explanatory burden. However, we can begin
by noting that the first two premises articulate an interactively coordinated system
composed of domain-general connectionist-style mechanisms with public symbol
systems. In accordance with EC, our human capacity for linguistic reasoning is the
joint product of neural networks organized exhaustively in terms of high-
dimensional patterns of activation and similarity metrics and environmentally
realized symbol systems (Clark 1997; Sutton 2010).
In unpacking premise 4, I focus on responding to a potential worry one might have
against DP in the domain of cognitive transformation. One could argue that the real
power of Clark’s phrase “complements but does not profoundly alter the brain’s own
basic modes of representation” (1997, p. 198; italics added), is that it resists the
orthodox view that language-like features such as productivity and systematicity can be
explained “only if a classical representational format (one which features a language-
like combinatorial syntax) is understood to be a fundamental feature of the neural
economy at some “higher,” non-implementational level.” (Wheeler 2004, p. 710) There
is absolutely nothing in either Wheeler’s argument or in the alternative to FP I am
exploring that heralds anything like a return to a “language of thought architecture”
(LOT). Wheeler gives two compelling reasons for this. First, unlike a LOT,
mathematical reasoning—regardless of accomplished on-line or off-line—does not
require that there is any sort of domain-specific processing device organized so as to
encode language-like symbols. According to Wheeler, “we can easily hold onto the
Extended cognition and fixed properties 297
“As far as I can see, while the sub-claim concerning the neutral effects of language
on the brain’s own basic mode of computation can still be sustained following my
critical arguments, the sub-claim concerning the neutral effects of language on the
brain’s own basic mode of representation cannot.” (2004, p. 709).
This brings us to premise 5. The argumentative appeal of this premise comes from
Clark’s own view that the brain’s own basic modes of representation remain
unaltered regardless of being reliably and functionally integrated with public
symbols in the cognitive niche or being effectively disconnected or decoupled from
the exact same environmental symbol systems. Following Wheeler, if some
properties of public symbol systems are distinctively part of our capacity for
mathematical reasoning—that is, if our ability to manipulate mathematical symbols
in the environment is part and parcel of our capacity to perform mathematical
practices—and if the properties of these public symbol systems are absent in cases
of mathematical off-line reasoning, then certain representations in the brain must
stand in for these structural properties when conducted off-line. Thus,
“[I]n the off-line case we confront nothing less than a profound transformation
in the brain’s own basic mode of representation, and that runs contrary to
Clark’s avowed view.” (Wheeler 2004, p. 711).
“Everyday life is continuously ordered into more or less stable patterns that are
specific to particular types of situations, defining preferences, predispositions,
and expectations for actors. These patterns present regularities that arise from
298 M.D. Kirchhoff
everyday practices while at the same time shaping them. Patterns appear to be
emergent phenomena that are currently not sufficiently explained by its
constitutive factors, i.e., individual behavior or intersubjectivity.” (2010, p. 1051).
The final piece of evidence running against FP-style assumptions and favoring a DP-
based explanation of cognitive transformation comes from neuroscience and the
development of arithmetic and reading abilities. Especially Dehaene’s “neuronal
recycling hypothesis” (NRH) is interesting here (2005). Why should one think that
Dehaene’s work supports DP? One of the most compelling ideas of the NRH is that
when the brain recruits and utilizes cognitive tools during ontogenetic development
this may lead to a recycling or pre-empting of biological mechanisms so that these
acquire a new function from their evolved function (Dehaene 2005; Nieder and
Dehaene 2009). This accommodates Wheeler’s point: that during participation in
socio-cultural patterns of stable mathematical practices, certain cortical areas of the
brain undergo a transformation in representational format enabling off-line
mathematics to occur. Second, because of these recycling processes, the organism
itself may undergo certain losses in cognitive abilities. If FP had been the case, this
loss of abilities would have been hard to explain. For instance, in learning to read
and engaging in regular patterns of reading such practices will partially reduce
Extended cognition and fixed properties 299
“According to this […] view, the architecture of the human brain is limited and
shares many traits with other non-human primates. It is laid down under tight
genetic constraints, yet with a fringe of variability. I postulate that cultural
acquisitions are only possible insofar as they fit within this fringe, by
reconverting pre-existing cerebral predispositions for another use. Accordingly,
cultural plasticity is not unlimited, and all cultural inventions should be based
on the pre-emption of pre-existing evolutionary adaptations of the human
brain. It thus becomes important to consider what may be the important
precursors of reading and arithmetic.” (2005, p. 134)
But why think (like one of the reviewers of this paper) that this counts
against DP? As far as I can tell, this worry is based on a symptom spread
throughout the literature on cognitive extension, namely an overly static and
synchronic conception of the relationship between brain, body and environment.
If one is willing to accept that diachronic development can establish more than
merely causal dependence of neural mechanisms on environmental elements,
then the NRH’s emphasis on “constraints imposed on cognitive development
during ontogeny” has itself emerged through dynamical interactions over large,
evolutionary time-scales. The simple fact that the NRH does not express a
“largely equipotential cortex” (Quartz and Sejnowski 1997) and virtually
unlimited plasticity is unlikely to count against a DP explanation. Let us look at
some evidence.
According to Dehaene (1997), Dehaene et al. (1999) the processes enabling
mathematical reasoning are stored in a complex network of representational
mechanisms: first, the capacity for exact mathematical reasoning is stored in a
culturally acquired language-specific format and located strictly in left-lateralized
activation in the inferior frontal lobe; second, the capacity for approximate
mathematical reasoning stored in an evolutionary older and non-linguistic, visuo-
spatial representational format and located primarily in the bilateral parietal lobes of
the brain (1999, p. 970, 973). The model invoked by Dehaene et al. depicts
mathematical reasoning as composed from three cognitive capacities (Dehaene 2001,
pp. 18–20):
& A biological precursor to discriminate small quantities, e.g., 1–2, 2–3, etc. This
capacity is a cross-species capacity found in preverbal children, dolphins,
chimps, rats, etc.
& A biological precursor to discriminate magnitudes between objects and numbers,
e.g., 8 is larger than 4. This capacity is also a cross-species capacity.
& An enculturated numerical system enabling humans to reason in a discrete and
symbolic format required for exact mathematical competence.
300 M.D. Kirchhoff
“In the cases here discussed, the differences in patterning, exposure to different
languages with different structures of the phonetic space, may co-locate with
differences in culture in the sense that ‘Finns’ appear to have one type of brain
while ‘Estonians’ appear to have a different type of ‘brain’.” (Roepstorff et al.
2010, p. 1053)
Extended cognition and fixed properties 301
In addition to the domain of cognitive transformation, I aim in this section to show that
there are FP-style tendencies in the domain of cognitive assembly as well. Unlike
cognitive transformation, where it was the assumption that non-biological elements
augment but do not transform certain of the brain’s representational capacities that linked
EC’s complementarity framework to FP, FP takes on a very different structure in the
domain of cognitive assembly. Hence, it is essential not to conflate my dealings with FP in
the domain of cognitive transformation with what is to come in this section. In the domain
of cognitive assembly, FP emerges due to an individualistic conception of the cognitive
agent orchestrating the assembly processes, viz., that it is primarily the biological
individual that is conceived as assembling cognitive systems (Clark 2008). So, FP
sneaks into the debate on cognitive assembly due to a failure of decentralizing
sufficiently the notion of cognitive agency to include socio-cultural practices.
the process of recruitment and assembly here-and-now that Clark thinks that the
brain is primarily the responsible mechanism (Clark 2011, p. 459). In his (2008),
Clark refers to a series of experiments by Gray and Fu (2004) in order to empirically
substantiate the HOC. What these studies show is that the neural control system is
indifferent to the source of information—whether it is in-the- head or in-the-world
located information—such that the brain (based on the time–cost involved in
information retrieval) determines whatever mix of resources are recruited to solve a
problem. Following Gray and colleagues, Clark takes the lesson from these
experiments to be that “our problem-solving performances take shape according to
some cost function or functions that, in the typical course of events, accord no
special status or privilege to specific types of operations (motoric, perceptual,
introspective) or modes of encoding (in the head or in the world).” (Clark 2008, 121)
As Clark sums up the results to support the HOC:
Like Dennett (1991), who sees the human mind as consisting of a semianarchic
coalition of elements, interconnected and competing, Clark sacks the idea of an “all-
powerful, hidden agent inside the brain whose job is to do all real thinking and
which is able to intelligently organize those teams of internal and external supporting
structure.” (Clark 2008, p. 136) Clark thinks that the “control is itself fragmented
and distributed, allowing different inner resources to interact with, or call upon,
different external resources without such activity being routed via the bottleneck of
conscious deliberation or the intervention of an all-seeing, all-orchestrating inner
executive.” (2008, pp. 136–7) Consequently, Clark decentralizes the cognitive agent
responsible for cognitive assembly into a fragmented and distributed mix of internal
self-organizing processes.
My claim is that it is at this particular stage that the first part of FP emerges in
Clark’s account, since when decentralizing the inner homunculus to self-organizing
and fragmented processes, he ends up bounding all of these dynamical elements
within the biological boundaries of the organism: “it is the biological organism that
[assembles] the […] extended machinery […].” (Clark 2008, p. 123) FP is the failure
of decentralizing the notion of cognitive agency sufficiently to include patterned
socio-cultured practices. Following Hutchins (2011a), the individualist assumption
of cognitive agency in the HOC threatens to isolate the activity of the brain from the
dynamics of socio-cultural practices on both synchronic and diachronic time-scales
(2011a, p. 411). That is, if the boundaries of cognitive agency do not outweigh the
individual organism, and if the dynamics of socio-cultural practices in cognitive
assembly are taken to play only secondary roles, then the dynamics of cognitive
assembly must derive from the biological brain and body. Hence, by endorsing an
individualist notion of cognitive agency, Clark ends up privileging the organism-
Extended cognition and fixed properties 303
centered mechanisms as the driving and most active loci around which extended
architectures organize and dissolve.
Clark’s intuition is that the dynamical processes responsible for cognitive assembly
reside at only one level: the individual organism. Maybe it is possible to find
individual cases where the appropriate level is indeed the individual organism.
However, the problem with encapsulating cognitive agency at the individual level is
that we can find cases where the individual level is insufficient in order to explain
the assembly of extended cognitive systems (Protevi 2009; Theiner et al. 2010). On
Hollan et al.’s account: in “distributed cognition, one expects to find a system that
304 M.D. Kirchhoff
1. A person, let us call her Alexis, is given a set of facts and is presented a
collection of evidence and is asked to judge on the basis of her own subjective
sense of fairness, the legitimacy of a certain claim being made. To make her
judgment Alexis must weigh the facts and consider the evidence entirely in her
own head, without help or interference from others. In this process she draws up
and considers three questions about the facts, tries to answer them the best she
can, and that makes her decision.
2. Alexis is given a set of facts and is presented a collection of evidence and is
asked to judge the legitimacy of a certain claim that is being made. This time,
however, she is given the three questions by a group of experts who provide a
set of possible answers from which she may choose. She may also decide to
formulate her own set of answers.
3. Alexis is given a set of facts and is presented a collection of evidence and is
asked to judge the legitimacy of a certain claim that is being made. As in (2), she
is asked to consider the same three questions by a group of experts who inform
her of a set of pre-established possible answers from which she can choose, and
a set of pre-established rules she must follow in answering the questions. The
rules specify that she must answer each question in one of only two ways,
choosing from the set of possible answers. Alexis is not allowed to formulate her
own alternative set of answers.
According to Gallagher and Crisafi, cases (2) and (3) are cognitive, in the sense
that they are cognition producing—they involve information-processing resources,
problem solving, reasoning, etc.—and they are cognition produced—they are
assembled from the activity of many people at both diachronic and synchronic
time-scales and their cognitive artifacts. On the issue of cognitive assembly—what
Extended cognition and fixed properties 305
or who it is that spins, selects, and coordinates the assembly process in the case of
legal practices—this could not take place primarily in the individual biological
organism. In fact, patterned practices would seem to do much of the spinning and
maintaining in the case of legal practices. Essentially, DP-driven explanations of
cognitive assembly enable at least two things: first, decentralizing cognitive agency
to include socio-cultural practices; and second, extended cognitive systems that exist
at a larger scale than merely individualist approaches focusing on integration or
incorporation of tools into the profile of a single individual.
scales. Right here, however, we are moving beyond the HOC—it is very hard (if not
impossible) to shoehorn collaborative memory in the case of Elizabethan theater
groups with the HOC. As Hutchins pinpoints, “few of the dynamic loops that link
people to their environments are invented by the people who exploit them.” (2011a,
p. 441) In Elizabethan theater companies, a substantial part of the assembly process
seems to be performed by dynamics of an apprenticeship system functioning on both
intergenerational time-scales and synchronic time-scales. Moreover, when Sterelny
remarks that it is true when Clark claims “that an organic brain chooses and assembles
the resources that make much problem solving possible […], but that in many critical
cases, those brains belong to members of the previous generation, not to the agent faced
with the problem […], (2010, p. 479),” he means quite literally that the cultural practices
of prior generations shape our epistemic access to the world by constraining “what to
attend to and to see when so attending.” (Hutchins 2011a, p. 441) Consequently, the
most active orchestrating elements in the process of joint action and memory in
Elizabethan theater companies outweigh the organism.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have explored some of the paths a distinctive third wave of extended
cognition might take. The critical-constructive view offered is that there is room
enough in extended cognition to do so without discrediting the validity of extended
cognition in general. In cognitive transformation cases, I argued that a potentially
problematic assumption concerning the complementarity framework is that it
presupposes that non-biological resources augment but do not transform the brain’s
representational capacities. In contrast to this tendency, I have attempted to show
that a much more dynamical model is available for the extended cognition theorist,
namely to view the enculturation processes on the brain as transforming the brain’s
representational capacities. In cognitive assembly cases, I argued that another
problematic tendency is an overly individualistic notion of cognitive agency—one
that places all the active and dynamical elements inside the organism, thereby
treating socio-cultural practices as only indirectly involved in the assembly of
extended cognitive systems. In contrast to this individualistic starting point, I have
argued that a much more distributed model is available to the fan of extended
cognition, namely to conceive of cognitive agency as socio-culturally distributed
across social groups, cognitive tools, and patterned practices.
Acknowledgments An Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project Grant (DP1095109) and
an International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship (no. 2011180) has funded this
project. Thanks to Richard Menary, John Sutton, and Will Newsome for helpful discussions. I am
especially grateful for the highly constructive comments made by two anonymous referees. Any mistakes
are mine and mine alone.
References
Bertoncini, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., Blumstein, S., & Mehler, J. (1987). Discrimination in neonates of very
short CVs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 31–37.
Extended cognition and fixed properties 307
Rowlands, M. (2010). The New Science of Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Sterelny, K. (2010). Minds: Extended or scaffolded? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9, 465–
481.
Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2011). Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive
Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Sutton, J. (2006). Distributed cognition: Domains and dimensions. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 235–
247.
Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process.
In R. Menary (Ed.), the extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Sutton, J., Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., & Barnier, A. J. (2010). The psychology of memory, extended
cognition, and socially distributed remembering. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4),
521–560.
Theiner, G., Allen, C., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Recognizing group cognition. Cognitive Systems
Research, 11, 378–395.
Tribble, E. B. (2005). Distributed Cognition in the Globe. Shakespeare Quarterly, 56(2), 135–155.
Walter, S. (2010). Cognitive extension: The parity argument, functionalism, and the mark of the cognitive.
Synthese, 177, 285–300.
Werker, J. F., & Lalonde, C. E. (1988). Cross-language speech perception: Initial capabilities and
developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 672–683.
Wheeler, M. (2004). Is language the ultimate artefacts? Language Sciences, 26, 693–715.
Wheeler, M. (2010). In defense of extended functionalism. In R. Menary (Ed.), The Extended Mind (pp.
245–270). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Wheeler, M. (2011). In search of parity. Philosophical Studies, 152, 417–425.