Ovaj rad razmatra pitanje može li se utjecajno razlikovanje između razina objašnjenja koje uvodi David Marr koristiti kao opći okvir za razmišljanje o razinama objašnjenja u kognitivnim znanostima i ...psihologiji. Marr je razlikovao tri razine na kojima možemo objašnjavati kognitivne procese: računalna, algoritamska i implementacijska razina. Neki tvrde da se Marrove razine objašnjenja poglavito mogu primjenjivati na modularne kognitivne sustave. Budući da su mnogi psihološki procesi nemodularni, čini se da Marrove razine objašnjenja ne mogu objasniti takve psihološke procese. U ovom radu se evaluira takva vrsta razmišljanja. Da bi se pokazalo da ovaj način razmišljanja nije uvjerljiv, u radu se prikazuje utjecajna paradigma iz kognitivnih znanosti koja se temelji na principu slobodne energije. Na temelju te paradigme, u radu se tvrdi da se čak i nemodularni psihološki procesi mogu uspješno analizirati iz računalne i algoritamske perspektive. Zaključak je rada da se, pod pretpostavkom da je funkcija uma minimiziranje slobodne energije, Marrov pristup razinama objašnjenja može uspješno primijeniti kao opći okvir za razumijevanje psiholoških procesa.
This paper considers the question of whether the influential distinction between levels of explanation introduced by David Marr can be used as a general framework for contemplating levels of explanation in cognitive sciences. Marr introduced three levels at which we can explain cognitive processes: the computational, algorithmic, and implementational levels. Some argue that Marr’s levels of explanation can only be applied to modular cognitive systems. However, since many psychological processes are non-modular, it seems that Marr’s levels of explanation cannot explain such psychological processes. To show that the latter claim is not convincing, the paper draws upon an influential paradigm from cognitive sciences that is based on the principle of free energy. Based on this paradigm, the paper argues that even non-modular psychological processes can be computationally analyzed and algorithmically implemented. The conclusion of the paper is that, at least under the assumption that the function of the mind is to minimize free energy, Marr’s levels of explanation can be successfully used as a general framework for understanding psychological processes at different levels of description.
The paper investigates a movement in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science seeking to strengthen interdisciplinary cooperation between the two. By carefully studying constitutive role of ...the living body (Leib) for consciousness and cognition, authors like Varela, Thompson, Gallagher and Zahavi are developing a new research paradigm to overcome, in an original way, the traditional mind–body dualism. First I will present the 4E turn in cognitive science with respect to the problem of mind–body dualism. Next, I will present Husserl’s dualistic argument about the essential distinction between the mode of being of consciousness, and the mode of being of world: the core of Husserl’s transcendental method. In the third part I will explain how contemporary enactivist and phenomenological conception of the living body represents the way to overcome ontological dualism between consciousness and world, as well as between the former and the body, and replace dualism with the idea of co-constitution of embodied consciousness and world. Finally, I explore to what extent this idea requires naturalization of phenomenology and defend Husserl’s epistemological dualism.
PDF