首页> 外文学位 >Recovering the embodied subject: Interdisciplinary issues in cognitive science and psychoanalysis.
【24h】

Recovering the embodied subject: Interdisciplinary issues in cognitive science and psychoanalysis.

机译:恢复具体主题:认知科学和精神分析中的跨学科问题。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In recent decades, cognitive science broadened the scope of its inquiry to include consciousness and subjectivity in models of "embodied" and "embedded" cognition. The consequences of this sweeping change for the interdisciplinary boundary between cognitive science and psychoanalysis are examined. In spite of disclaimers by critics of rapprochement that the two paradigms are not commensurate in their core, it is argued that subjectivity, conceived as particularity of situated embodied mental states, has been a long-standing conceptual problem for both fields, and does not therefore provide a rigid boundary of mutual exclusion between psychoanalysis and cognitive science. Signs of intra-disciplinary splits and fault-lines are revealed in the problem of semantic reference in cognitive science and the problem of drive-object linkage in psychoanalysis. The following critiques of rigidly polarized conceptualizations in the two disciplines are examined: (a) mechanical action vs. intentional representation (Varela, Thompson and Rosch); (b) localized presence vs. absence of conscious content (Dennett and Kinsbourne); (c) data vs. inference (Gigerenzer and Murray); (d) instinctual/biological vs. interpersonal/representational states (Winnicott and Ogden). It is shown the questions raised by Winnicott and Ogden are closely related to some of the central concerns of Varela, Dennett, and Damasio, namely: (a) the status of objective reality in the experience of embodied subjects; (b) temporality as a factor in integration of mental states; and (c) the role of affect in the development of intentionality. Analysis of implicit objectivist assumptions operating in the normative models of judgment, decision making and randomness perception shows how the objectivist "brand of ownership" shapes descriptive data and leads researchers to neglect the subjective contribution in information search and the role of task. The general conclusion is that the traditional approach which identifies subjectivity with the inter-disciplinary boundary between objectively oriented science and hermeneutically oriented psychoanalysis is subverted by new models of situated embodied cognition; thus, subjectivity needs to be re-conceptualized as an intra-disciplinary problem which is shared by both fields and which emerges in conflicts between mechanical (design) and intentional (content) descriptions of cognitive processes.
机译:在最近的几十年中,认知科学扩大了其研究范围,将意识和主观性纳入了“体现”和“嵌入”认知模型中。研究了这种彻底改变对认知科学与精神分析之间跨学科边界的影响。尽管批评家对和解的主张表示否认,这两种范式在其核心上并不相称,但有人认为,主观性,被认为是情境体现的精神状态的特殊性,对于这两个领域都是一个长期存在的概念性问题,因此并非如此。在精神分析和认知科学之间提供了严格的相互排斥边界。认知科学中的语义参照问题和心理分析中的驱动对象联系问题揭示了学科内分裂和断层的迹象。在这两个学科中,对以下严格极化概念化的批评进行了考察:(a)机械作用与故意表现(Varela,Thompson和Rosch); (b)有意识的内容的局部存在与否(Dennett和Kinsbourne); (c)数据与推论(Gigerenzer和Murray); (d)本能/生物学与人际交往/代表状态(温尼科特和奥格登)。可以看出,温尼科特和奥格登提出的问题与Varela,Dennett和Damasio的一些中心关注密切相关,即:(a)客观现实在具体主体体验中的地位; (b)暂时性是精神状态融合的一个因素; (c)情感在意向性发展中的作用。对在判断,决策和随机性感知的规范模型中运行的隐式客观主义假设的分析表明,客观主义“所有权品牌”如何塑造描述性数据,并导致研究人员忽略了信息搜索中的主观贡献和任务的作用。总的结论是,传统的方法将主观性与客观导向的科学与诠释学导向的精神分析之间的跨学科界限相结合,这被情境化的认知新模型所颠覆。因此,主观性需要被重新概念化为一个学科内的问题,这是两个领域都共有的,并且出现在认知过程的机械(设计)和故意(内容)描述之间的冲突中。

著录项

  • 作者

    Fel, David.;

  • 作者单位

    New School for Social Research.;

  • 授予单位 New School for Social Research.;
  • 学科 Psychology Clinical.; Psychology Cognitive.; Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1998
  • 页码 306 p.
  • 总页数 306
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 医学心理学、病理心理学;心理学;哲学理论;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:48:29

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号