The Argumentative To Cross The Boundaries Of Clark And Chalmers

and Chalmers’ theory may limit “the cognitive to cross the boundaries of the brain without extending to the whole of creation”. Both of these situations are simply two roads that Clark and Chalmers could take if they were to choose a solid route for their theory. These situations lead to more complex theories that presumably neither author pair would like to take. In an effort to defend common sense, Adams and Aizawa believe the bounds of cognition has a reasonable and principled theory of the mark of the cognitive.
Adams and Aizawa continue with other arguments for the bounds of cognition in their paper. It should be noted that Adams and Aizawa did not target Clark and Chalmers alone, but rather found other arguments to dissect and even use …show more content…
The two previous responses were on different ends of the spectrum and they seemed to come up with a happy medium. They took what we usually think of as cognition and fused it with our environment to make it more external and active. This is significant in a review of previous research that may have focused on one or the other. It should also pave the way for future research to make both internal and external factors just as vital and valuable for discussion. I find a couple things wrong with their view. As I was reading the paper, I did not care for the coupled system. I think while every part is important, there are parts that are more useful and necessary than others. I think it also depends on the individual to decide what parts are essential to them and what is not. Another problem I had was with the argument of Otto, Twin Otto, and Inga. While Inga did believe she knew where the museum is, I do think she had to use a cognitive process in order to back track to the time she found out the information. Otto had to think back to where he could obtain the address from. While he is suffering from Alzheimer’s, he still had to find some way of thinking about where he had written the address down. With Twin Otto, I could not think of an issue with his thought …show more content…
Their goal was to give solidified bounds of cognition. They struggled with Clark and Chalmers and other likeminded philosophers’ belief that there was more than a limitation on cognition. Adams and Aizawa’s claim that cognitive processes are causally individuated was something I thought of when reading Clark and Chalmers. Cognition will look different in a computer and a human, but that does not necessarily mean that one is thinking and one is not. The bounds are significantly dependent on the individual. Adams and Aizawa seem to contribute the bounds to the brain, and for the most part I agree. Cognition by definition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experiences, and the senses. The cognitive is influenced by many things but its process is in the