creators_name: Nagarjuna, G.
creators_id: Nagarjuna G.
editors_name: Ramadas, Jayashree
editors_name: Chunawala, Sugra
type: confpaper
datestamp: 2006-05-30
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:56:26
metadata_visibility: show
title: Layers in the Fabric of Mind: A Critical Review of Cognitive Ontogeny
ispublished: inpress
subjects: dev-psy
subjects: cog-psy
subjects: phil-mind
subjects: evol-psy
subjects: phil-epist
full_text_status: public
keywords: modularity, Fodor, Chomsky, informational encapsulation, concept formation, conscious cognition, implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge, Karmiloff-Smith, Piaget
abstract: The essay is critically examines the conceptual problems with the influential modularity model of mind. We shall see that one of the essential characters of modules, namely informational encapsulation, is not only inessential, it ties a knot at a crucial place blocking the solution to the problem of understanding the formation of concepts from percepts (nodes of procedural knowledge). Subsequently I propose that concept formation takes place by modulation of modules leading to cross-representations, which were otherwise prevented by encapsulation. It must be noted that the argument is not against modular architecture, but a variety of an architecture that prevents interaction among modules. This is followed by a brief argument demonstrating that module without modularization, i.e. without developmental history, is impossible. Finally the emerging picture of cognitive development is drawn in the form of the layers in the fabric of mind, with a brief statement of the possible implications.

date: 2006
date_type: published
publisher: Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Mumbai, India
refereed: TRUE
referencetext: Anderson, J. R. (1983), ‘The Architecture of Cognition’. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Carey, S. and Gelman, R., editors (1991), ‘The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition’. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Carruthers, P. (2005), The case for massively modular models of mind. In Stainton, R., editor, ‘Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science’. Blackwell.

Chomsky, N. (1988), ‘Language and Problems of Knowledge’. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (1994), ‘Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization’. In (Hirschfeld and Gelman, 1994).

Donald, M. (1991), ‘Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition’. Harward University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fermüller, C. and Malm, H. (2004), ‘Uncertainty in visual processes predicts geometrical optical illusions’. Vision Research, 44:727–749.

Fodor, J. A. (1983), ‘Modularity of Mind’. MIT Press, Massachusetts.

Fodor, J. A. (2000), ‘The Mind Doesn’t Work that Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology’. MIT Press, Massachusetts.

Gärdenfors, P. (2003), ‘How Homo became Sapiens?: On the Evolution of Thinking’. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hirschfeld, L. and Gelman, S., editors (1994), ‘Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1995), ‘Beyond Modularity — A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science’. A Bradford Book, MIT Press, England.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970), ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Mandler, J. M. (2004), ‘The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought’. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Marr, D. (1982), ‘Vision’. Walter Freeman and Co.

Nagarjuna G. (1994), ‘The Role of Inversion in the Genesis, Development and the Structure of Scientific Knowledge’. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, INDIA.

Nagarjuna G. (2005a), ‘From folklore to science’. To be presented in the International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference, Leeds, during 15th - 18th July 2005.

Nagarjuna G. (2005b), ‘Muscularity of mind: Towards an explanation of the transition from unconscious to conscious’. Preprint available at http://cogprints.org/4352/. Paper presented in the annual Europian Society for Philosophy and Psychology conference at Lund, Sweden, during 14th - 17th August 2005.

Penrose, R. (1989), ‘The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics’. Oxford University Press.

Penrose, R. (1994), ‘Shadows of the Mind’. Oxford University Press, New York.

Piaget, J. (1968), ‘Six Psychological Studies’. Vintage Books, New York. Translated from French by Anita Tenzer.

Piaget, J. (1969), ‘The Mechanisms of Perception’. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1970), ‘Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology’, volume I, chapter Piaget’s Theory, pages 703–732. J. Wiley, New York, 3 edition.

Pinker, S. (1997), ‘How the Mind Works’. Norton, New York.
Sampaio, E., Maris., S., and Bach-y-Rita., P. (2001), ‘Brain plasticity: ’visual’ acuity of blind persons via the tongue’. Brain Research, 908:204.

Simon, H. (1962), ‘The architecture of complexity’. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 162:467–482.

Sperber, D. (1994), ‘Modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations’. In (Hirschfeld and Gelman, 1994).

Turchin, V. (1977), ‘The Phenomenon of Science, a book on MSTT’. Columbia University Press, New York.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), ‘Mind and Society’. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Weiskopf, D. A. (2002), ‘A critical review of jerry a. fodor’s the mind doesn’t work that wa’y. Philosophical Psychology, 15(4):551–562.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953), ‘Philosophical Investigations’. New York: The Macmillan Company, New York.

citation:   Nagarjuna, G.  (2006) Layers in the Fabric of Mind: A Critical Review of Cognitive Ontogeny.  [Conference Paper]    (In Press)  
document_url: http://cogprints.org/4897/1/layers.pdf