Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2018, Vol. 50 Issue (4) : 462-472     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00462
|
 Body and cognitive representation: Understandings and divergences
 YE Haosheng; MA Yankun; YANG Wendeng
 (Center for Mind and Brain Science, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006)
Download: PDF(380 KB)   Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract   What is meant by “body” here? There are many understandings about what the human body is, which promote a variety of research programs in cognitive science in general and cognitive psychology in particular. The classical information-processing model of cognitive psychology treated the body as a biophysical substance that is different from the mind as a mental substance. Therefore, as a science of mind, the body has always been ignored and relegated to the position of a “physiological basis” of the mind. The classical cognitive psychology is founded on the idea that brain is something like a digital computer in which the physical structure of the brain is like a hardware, and the cognition is a software. In other words, the cognition was assumed as a computation of a computer. Usually, computation is understood as the rule-governed manipulation of representations, therefore, it requires the assumption that the mind contains some cognitive representations of aspects of the objective world that is independent of our perceptual and cognitive capacities. The cognitive representations are abstract symbols and they are amodal and exist independent of structures and functions of the body. As if the body is only a “carrier” or “container” of the mind. In contrast, embodiment theories of cognitive psychology had tried to distance itself from the classical cognitive psychology, highlighting the pervasiveness of in cognition of bodily factors. Right now, there are many approaches and programs sailing under the banner of “embodied cognition.” A “moderate” or “weak” approaches to embodied cognitive psychology do not separate the body from the mind. They take the body as more in mind, and want to elevate the importance of the body in explaining cognitive processes. From the point of view of the moderates, cognition is in essence a kinds of bodily experience, and the nature of our bodies shapes our very possibilities for our thinking and feeling. For the moderates, cognition is still involved in mental representation and computable processing which are staples of classical cognitive psychology. However, the cognitive representations are not disembodied symbols, but are body-formatted or body-related codes. The “radical” or “strong” approaches to embodied cognitive psychology claim that cognitive systems do not rely on internal representations and computations. Human cognition should be explained without the ascription of representational mental states. Our cognition is essentially grounded in the brain as it is integrated with our body. The nature of our cognitive processes is determined by the specific action possibilities afforded by our body. Our cognitive system is for action, and about solving problems for the organism, not for forming cognitive representations. Cognition is essentially a embodied action.
Keywords cognition      representation      embodied cognition      body      mind      enactivism     
ZTFLH:     
  B84-09  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: YANG Wendeng, E-mail: yangwendeng@163.com; MA Yankun, E-mail: myk1966@sina.com     E-mail: E-mail: yangwendeng@163.com; E-mail: myk1966@sina.com
Issue Date: 01 March 2018
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YE Haosheng
MA Yankun
YANG Wendeng
Cite this article:   
YE Haosheng,MA Yankun,YANG Wendeng.  Body and cognitive representation: Understandings and divergences[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(4): 462-472.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00462     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2018/V50/I4/462
[1] LUO Ting, QIU Ruyi, CHEN Bin, FU Shimin.  The stimulus representation of unconscious information and its temporal characteristics[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(5): 473-482.
[2] ZHANG Jijia, CHEN Xuqian, YOU Ning, WANG Bin.  On how conceptual connections influence the category perception effect of colors: Another evidence of connections between language and cognition[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(4): 390-399.
[3] REN Zhihong, Zhang Yawen, JIANG Guangrong.  Effectiveness of mindfulness meditation in intervention for anxiety: A meta-analysis[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(3): 283-305.
[4] DOU Kai, LIU Yaozhong, WANG Yujie, NIE Yangang.  Willingness to cooperate: Emotion enhancement mechanism of perceived social mindfulness on cooperative behaviour[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(1): 101-114.
[5] BAI Lu, MAO Weibin, WANG Rui, Zhang Wenhai.  The effect of emotional scene and body expression on facial expression recognition[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(9): 1172-1183.
[6] SONG Xiaolei, ZHANG Junting, SHI Jie, YOU Xuqun.  Influence of emotional valence on the spatial simon effect under the vocal response mode[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1031-1040.
[7] HAN Meng, MAO Xinrui, CAI Mengtong, JIA Xi, GUO Chunyan.  The effect of positive and negative signs on the SNARC effect in the magnitude judgment task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 995-1008.
[8] YANG Jiping, GUO Xiumei, WANG Xingchao. Metaphorical representation of moral concepts: Evidence from red/white color, left/right position and upright/skew font[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 875-885.
[9] ZHANG Jianxin, LU Li, YIN Ming, ZHU Chuanlin, HUANG Chunlu, LIU Dianzhi.  The establishment of ecological microexpressions recognition test (EMERT): An improvement on JACBART microexpressions recognition test[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 886-896.
[10] JIANG Ronghuan, LI Xiaodong.  The overuse of proportional reasoning and its cognitive mechanism: A developmental negative priming study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(6): 745-758.
[11] SONG Xiaolei; FU Xuna; ZHANG Junting; YOU Xuqun. The influence of different numeral representations and body experience on numeral cognition under the paradigm of response-effect compatibility[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(5): 602-610.
[12] SUN Yusheng; ZHANG Zhijun; WU Binxing. The impact of contextual expectation on rapid natural scene recognition[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(5): 577-589.
[13] LIU Xinyuan; ZHANG Zhijie. The intermediate common representation of space-time association: Evidence from the reversed STEARC effect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(4): 427-438.
[14] WU Shiyu; ZHANG Yuying; HU Qingqing. A cognitive inquiry into the short-circuit hypothesis in L2 reading: A paradigm of online L2 discourse processing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 285-295.
[15] SUN Juncai; SHI Rong. Attentional bias to crying facial expressions: Evidence from eye movements[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(2): 155-163.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech