ISSN 1671-3710
CN 11-4766/R
主办:中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理科学进展 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (7): 1186-1194.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01186

• 研究前沿 • 上一篇    下一篇

预测加工与认知边界:基于现象学的视角

李雪玉, 高申春()   

  1. 吉林大学哲学社会学院, 长春 130012
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-08 出版日期:2023-07-15 发布日期:2023-04-23
  • 通讯作者: 高申春 E-mail:gsc@jlu.edu.cn

Predictive processing and the bounds of cognition: A phenomenological perspective

LI Xueyu, GAO Shenchun()   

  1. Jilin University School of Philosophy and Sociology, Changchun 130012, China
  • Received:2022-09-08 Online:2023-07-15 Published:2023-04-23
  • Contact: GAO Shenchun E-mail:gsc@jlu.edu.cn

摘要:

预测加工是目前认知科学和心灵哲学中一个重要的理论框架。该框架对于认知边界有两种截然不同的理解方式, 分为内在主义和外在主义立场。前者主张以马尔科夫毯为证据边界, 认知是内在的心智活动, 是一种彻底的神经表征主义; 而后者倡导该框架与具身心智、延展认知的观点相结合, 以行动为导向的表征使心物之间并无静态固定的边界。两者均面临无法解释的疑难, 认知限于颅内则遭遇认识的超越性困境, 而动态可变的边界则受困于认知标志的模糊性。现象学在认识的本质问题上作出了富有意义的探索, 它无疑为预测加工认知模型提供了反思空间。

关键词: 预测加工, 认知边界, 内在主义, 外在主义, 现象学

Abstract:

Predictive processing (PP) is an important theoretical framework in cognitive science and philosophy of mind. As a cognitive model, PP performs “Copernican inversion” on the standard image of sensory processing, and it depicts the brain as a sophisticated hypothesis-testing machine, which strives to minimize the error of predictions of the incoming sensory input. The perception view of prediction not only reflects and promotes the theoretical thinking of predecessors, but also has been confirmed by experiments. However, the research community has not formed a consistent view. What is the boundary of cognition has become the core of the debate, Markov Blanket as a hypothesis is an important concept. However, the framework has two distinct approaches to the understanding of the bounds of cognition, which are divided into internalism and externalism.
On the one hand, the proponents of internalism hold that perception is a process of inference from “effects” (internal states of the brain) to “causes” (hidden triggers in the external world), with the Markov Blanket as the evidentiary boundary. Cognition is an internal mental activity, that means radical neuro-representationalism.This is considered "an affirmation of the simple Cartesian skepticism". There is no doubt that the model in the brain can never access the original, nor replace the original. Therefore, the interpretation of internalism makes it difficult for us to understand the miracle of the interconnection between the mind and the world. The problem with this position is how does the mind in our brain know things outside our mind? How does the brain, as a physical thing, relate to the nonphysical mind?These two problems can be considered in combination with Husserl's transcendence of cognition.
On the other hand, the supporters of PP externalism emphasize that the framework should be combined with the embodied mind and extended cognition, advocating an action-oriented representation.Through analysis, radical neuro-representationalism has made at least two mistakes: one is to introduce a "veil" between the subject and the world; Second, the role of action in the prediction process was ignored. With the help of the dynamic and variable Markov blanket, this externalism position can freely change the boundary to walk in the brain, body and the world. The boundary of cognition is fluid and changeable. The problem is that the marks of cognition are ambiguous, and how the body interacts with the environment. Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of the body undoubtedly lays a strong foundation for the action turn in cognitive research.
Through careful investigation and critical reflection, we find the following conculusion that the explanation of the absolute internalism and externalism of cognition seems to be inaccurate. And to clarify the boundary of cognition, we must inevitably resort to the interpretation of the nature of cognition, and the core content in the phenomenological criticism of cognition is just in line with this appeal. To solve the problem of internalism, we could combine intentionality, meaning and prediction of consciousness. As for the dilemma of externalism, we should explore the phenomenological scheme of “to the things themselves” (zu den Sachen selbst), and adopt the viewpoint of body phenomenology.
As mentioned above, it is undeniable that predictive processing, as a possible new paradigm of cognitive science, does provide some new concepts and unique perspectives for understanding human cognition and action. Unfortunately, both the internalism and externalism positions of the framework are facing cognitive dilemmas to some extent. Cognition is neither limited to the brain, nor simply embedded in the surrounding world. It also participates in the generation of the world. Cognitive psychology can get effective enlightenment from this research in both methods and theories. Phenomenology, as a mode of thinking, undoubtedly provides a space for reflection in the study of PP cognitive model.

Key words: predictive processing, the bounds of cognition, internalism, externalism, phenomenology

中图分类号: