Search This Blog

Saturday, December 20, 2008

행동주의와 체화된인지 접근의 공통점, 차이

행동주의와 체화된인지 접근의 공통점, 차이

웹에서 보면 Fred Keijzer 교수의 다음 논문이 있습니다.
학술지 Philosophical Psychology에 출간될 논문인데, 그 결론 부분이 이 홈을 찾는 여러분들에게 도움이 될 것 같아서
Keijzer 교수에게 메일을 보내 결론 부분을 옮겨 담는 것을 허락 받아 이곳에 올립니다
전통적 행동주의와 체화된 인지 접근의 차이에 대하여 이 결론 부분의 저자의 견해를 참고하시기 바랍니다.

이 홈 독자들을 위하여 논문 옮겨쓰기를 허락해 준 Fred Keijzer 교수에게 감사드립니다.

Theoretical behaviorism meets embodied cognition: Two theoretical analyses of behavior.

- Fred Keijzer
/ Faculty of Philosophy/ University of Groningen/ A-weg 30, 9718 CW Groningen/ The Netherlands
(To appear in Philosophical Psychology)


체화된 인지 관점과 유사하다고 주장이 되는 Theoretical behaviorism 과 관련하여 이론적행동주의와 체화된인지접근의 두 접근의 유사성, 차이점을 기술하고 행동주의가 아닌 행동과학(behavioral science rather than behaviorism) 이 필요함을 주장함.

결론 부분 (15-16 쪽)


Behaviorism and embodied cognition both stress the importance of behavior when it comes to
conceptualizing cognition, or more generally the mind. The radical, behavioral systems, version
of embodied cognition that has been discussed here even shares with behaviorism a version of the

claim that cognition is constituted by behavioral - perception-action - phenomena (Hurley,

Nevertheless, I hope to have shown convincingly the deep differences between the two
views, even when behaviorism is updated and internal states become part of its explanatory
vocabulary, as in Staddon’s theoretical behaviorism. First, the two differ in the very conception
of behavior itself. Behaviorism highlights the functional regularities of behavior, while a
behavioral systems approach stresses in addition the need for an anatomy of behavior: a structural
description of the physical behavior itself. Second, behaviorism remains phrased in unidirectional
terms, while a behavioral systems approach builds on loopy structures where almost any
influence between components is reciprocal. Third, as a result of their different conceptions of
behavior, the approaches differ markedly in their estimation of the complexity involved in
behavioral phenomena. Fourth, theoretical behaviorism remains different from cognitive
approaches by keeping its models as simple as possible while still accommodating the behavioral
data. In contrast, a behavioral systems approach sets cognition itself in a behavioral context. Thus
it retains its identity even when the mechanisms involved become increasingly complex and more
like classic cognition.

The differences between these two theoretical analyses of behavior are systematic.
Behaviorism, including theoretical behaviorism, has a strong methodological motivation.
Behavior has always been the outwardly visible aspect of any internal - mental, cognitive or
neural- process. By targeting outward behavior, behaviorists kept a firm objective footing in
solid observable data and hoped to avoid questionable cognitive and overly complex neural
mechanisms. The motivation behind a behavioral systems approach is different. This approach
turns to behavior because it holds that outward perception-action coupling is an intrinsic aspect of
the processes making up intelligence. In addition, behavior also provides the whole evolutionary
rationale for any internal - mental, cognitive or neural - process. Behavior is set center stage
because it is of central importance for intelligence, irrespective whether it is easily accessible or
not. The seeming accessibility of behavior is even put into question as it turns out to be rather
difficult and complex to access the fleeting dynamical structures of behavior.

Having compared the two theoretical approaches to the study of behavior, I find any
methodological reasons for turning to behavior much less convincing than behavior’s intrinsic
importance. So, while treasuring its techniques and empirical knowledge, I want to conclude that
there is no question of a current return to behaviorism. Behaviorism remains as dead - or alive if
you want - as it ever was, even when the scientific study of behavior must be considered of
primary importance.

No comments:

Post a Comment