The Extended Mind Hypothesis

But the reason is not just the reason "It can not simply point the boundary between skin and skull" (Clark and Chalmers 1998). Since the paradox of Clark and Chalmers' discussion is simple and direct, I emphasize first. The authors assume that the automatic binding of external objects to human thought means that the subject becomes part of it. You may acknowledge that tools used with humans constitute a cognitive system, but not because people have an "X system" and each component of the system is X '(Aizawa and Adams, 2010). Even if an external object becomes part of it, it will not automatically become a "recognition mind".

As mentioned earlier, the distinction between Andy Clark's "broad mind" and conscious subjects probably best represents the current state of philosophical argument. The expanded mental hypothesis highlights the fact that there is no reason to believe that the boundaries of the human body are particularly relevant. Regarding the function of the knowledge machine that I have designated, this is very close to what Clark calls the idea of ​​expansion, and in the general development of the world, the boundary can be considered transcendental . Nevertheless, as Clark makes a conscious idea like Paffett, he considers the boundary to be internal: it is a part of the brain as well as the boundary of the brain.

According to Clarks' answer to Adams and Aizawa (2010), they said Clark's extended mental assumption is problematic. They suggested a theoretical "recognition mark" as Clark stated that Clark did not correctly interpret the recognition and "coupling constitutes an error", which proves that the recognition process actually expanded Maybe. Adams and Aizawa (2001) describes artifact pencils and paper explaining pen and paper usage while performing fairly difficult arithmetic. An individual may not be able to solve the problem when using the head. so. They say that paper and pen only allow a little cognitive process, otherwise it may be impossible. Menarei (2010) believes that the indicia of cognition is limited

Depending on others * Mr. Goldberg thinks that the standard promise for process reliability is attributed to what he calls "assumption of extensibility". The extension hypothesis states that, in the case of testimony, attribution (not only knowledge) of the reason depends not only on the cognitive process of the testimony consumer but also on the reliability of the cognitive process of the original source. Mr. Goldberg believes that this will improve the reliability of the process to a limited but powerful one. He in particular ignored the differences between personal responsibility issues, trust issues and information source validation problems. Finally, there is a reason to believe that I realize that the final credibility social sense Goldberg ignores important personal obligations that can only emerge from a more social perspective.