Talk:Embodied cognition

The problem with the philosophy and neuroscience sections

(1) They are poorly written and (2) they are not comprehensive (i.e., they are a random collection of academics rather than a complete overview of the topic). But my big concern is really (3) several of the people cited aren't really pushing the embodied mind thesis as it is defined at the top of the article. Many of them are simply arguing for some (interesting and original) form of physicalism. This is not the same thing. Certainly Patricia Carpenter falls in this category, and I think Damasio and Edelman are really in this category as well.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that some of these people actually call their work "embodied" something-or-other. I think that Verala and Maturana actually originated the term "embodied mind", but their work is not really in the same vein as the cognitive science and psychology we're writing about. (It's more abstract, less evidence based, and even has methodological connections to all that mid-century continental philosophy.)

We need a source that has some kind of overview, so we can give the reader this information. But the source has to have a multidisciplinary and historical viewpoint that Wikipedia needs. This is kind of source is really hard to find, because very few sources use as wide a lens as Wikipedia does. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The part about Kant seems off: I tried verifying it, but could not find any sources corroborating it. The reference given at the end of the chapter does not mention Kant at all. It is either original research, or the reference is missing. Can anyone clarify? Wikikrax (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I put in a citation which shows I think (!) that Kant operated with the idea that humans were physical, as opposed to the pure mind of God. And that is what distinguishes them. Does this mean he held an embodied view of the mind? I think possibly, but its a bit tenuous. TonyClarke (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Added a better citation which seems to settle it. Thanks Google TonyClarke (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. I have a few worries, though. First, where did you get the name of the journal? As far as I can read from the pdf, the journal is called FALSAFEH. The only reference to it seems to be in German and Farsi, neither of which I read very well. Second, according to Google Scholar, the paper has never been cited, so it might not be the most reliable academic source. 130.234.73.234 (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Oops, wasn't logged in. Wikikrax (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I had a few worries myself. The article seemed to have few citations or references.

I looked at it again since you wrote the above, so hope this helps. I got the reference from a Google search on 'Kant, embodied cognition'. Two close to the top of the results were [1] and [2]. The latter shows it comes from the University of Teheran database of journals. Also the article says it is from Ellis College. I suppose the main, and reliable references in the article is Kant's original writing which it quotes extensively, so the claims are checkable. What Kant said seems to be in the area of embodiment, although clearly before the concept became relevant today. Some of his quotations would serve as alternative citation. The article doesn't look like original research to me, but worries remain as I can't come up with any of Andrew Carpenter's articles on Google Scholar. What do you think? TonyClarke (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is similar to what has been pointed out earlier here: Kant's idea of embodiment is probably not very similar to the idea under discussion. The article now referred certainly quotes Kant, and seems to make sense, but without either extensive knowledge of the topic or other articles corroborating the claim I'm wary. The problem is perhaps also one of structure: the idea of embodied cognition is certainly discussed in philosophy, but the philosophers mentioned are not actually part of the discussion as it is today. A separate chapther on the background and history of the concept could perhaps do the trick, highlighting the fact that the concept does not spring out of nothing, but is still significantly different in the present context. Wikikrax (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The last chapter in the philosophy section is highly misleading, since it definetely does not apply to all the examples discussed. I'm in favour of removing it entirely, but it would also work if somebody can limit it's scope to the relevant examples. Wikikrax (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No one objected or clarified the section, so I removed the last chapter of the philosophy section. Wikikrax (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

There is a lot that could be done to the introduction, but there is one particular part that I'm worried about: "Embodied cognition reflects the argument that the motor system influences our cognition, just as the mind influences bodily actions." Isn't this putting the issue too narrowly? Embodied cognition is a broader topic than simply the effect of the motor system. Can "the motor system" be replaced by something more general to cover all the aspects discussed in the article? Wikikrax (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction has been rewritten to reflect actual sources and a subsection on Embodiment thesis added with sources. Brews ohare (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing reference: 15

The reference for 15 (Carpenter, A.: Kant on the Embodied Cognition, Philosophy (Volume:36 Issue:1)) leads to an error page and the journal page is written in a language I don't read. Anyone have a reference that works?Wikikrax (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed: see A Carpenter. Brews ohare (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Embodied cognition and AI

I'm not a specialist, but isn't it important to note Dreyfus' work on AI in the artificial intelligence section? It seems like it has a lot of overlap... Fephisto (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Simulating the brain

The section on simulating the brain is not only unsourced but unintelligible in its present form. I have removed it. Brews ohare (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)