Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/73905
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Letheby, C. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2012; 11(3):403-414 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1568-7759 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1572-8676 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/73905 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Fred Adams (Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9(4): 619–628, 2010) criticizes the theory of embodied cognition (EC) which holds that conceptual and linguistic thought is grounded in the brain’s perceptual and sensorimotor systems. Among other things, Adams claims that: (1) EC is potentially committed to an implausible criterion of sentence meaningfulness; (2) EC lacks claimed advantages over rival accounts of conceptual thought; (3) relevant experimental data do not show constitutive, but only causal, involvement of perception in conception; and (4) EC cannot account for the comprehension of abstract concepts. I respond to Adams that: (1) EC is not committed to an implausible criterion of meaningfulness, though it may be committed to holding that comprehension admits of degrees; (2) EC does have its claimed advantages over rival views; (3) the data do make a strong case for constitutive involvement and (4) a broad and comprehensive EC approach probably can account for the comprehension of abstract concepts. | - |
dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Christopher Letheby | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Springer Netherlands | - |
dc.rights | © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 | - |
dc.source.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11097-012-9263-1 | - |
dc.subject | Embodied cognition | - |
dc.subject | simulation | - |
dc.subject | symbol grounding | - |
dc.subject | comprehension | - |
dc.subject | linguistic meaning | - |
dc.subject | perceptual symbols | - |
dc.title | In defence of embodied cognition: a reply to Fred Adams | - |
dc.type | Journal article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s11097-012-9263-1 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Letheby, C. [0000-0002-6293-7873] | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest Philosophy publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.