1887
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Ruth Millikan has hypothesised that human cognition contains ‘consistency testers’. Consistency testers check whether different judgements a thinker makes about the same subject matter agree or conflict. Millikan’s suggestion is that, where the same concept has been applied to the world via two routes, and the two judgements that result are found to be inconsistent, that makes the thinker less inclined to apply those concepts in those ways in the future.

If human cognition does indeed include such a capacity, its operation will be an important determinant of how people use concepts. It will have a major impact on which concepts they deploy and which means of application (conceptions) they rely on. Since consistency testers are a selection mechanism at the heart of conceptual thinking, they would be crucial to understanding how concepts are selected  – why some are retained and proliferate and others die out. Hence, whether consistency testers for concepts exist, and how they operate, is an important question for those seeking to understand the cultural evolution of concepts, and of the words we use to express them.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00048.she
2023-07-07
2024-05-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A.
    (2017) Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 211, 607–17. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Astuti, R., & Harris, P. L.
    (2008) Understanding Mortality and the Life of the Ancestors in Rural Madagascar. Cognitive Science, 321, 713–40. 10.1080/03640210802066907
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066907 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dawkins, R.
    (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: O.U.P.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Doyle, M. E., & Hourihan, K. L.
    (2016) Metacognitive Monitoring During Category Learning: How Success Affects Future Behaviour. Memory, 241, 1197–207. 10.1080/09658211.2015.1086805
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1086805 [Google Scholar]
  5. Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. K.
    (2017) Interleaved Presentation Benefits Science Category Learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 61, 475–85. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Eslami, SM Ali, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Frederic Besse, Fabio Viola, Ari S Morcos, Marta Garnelo, Avraham Ruderman, Andrei A Rusu, Ivo Danihelka, and Karol Gregor
    2018 Neural scene representation and rendering. Science, 360 (6394), 1204–1210. 10.1126/science.aar6170
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar6170 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fernandez Cruz, A. L., Arango-Munoz, S. & Volz, K. G.
    (2016) Oops, Scratch That! Monitoring One’s Own Errors During Mental Calculation. Cognition, 1461, 110–20. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E.
    (2007) Free-Energy and the Brain. Synthese, 1591, 417–58. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9237‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9237-y [Google Scholar]
  9. Godfrey-Smith, P.
    (2013) Signals, Icons, and Beliefs. InD. Ryder, J. Kingsbury & K. Williford (Eds.), Millikan and Her Critics (pp. 41–58). Oxford / Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Guilbeault, D., Baronchelli, A., & Centola, D.
    (2021) Experimental Evidence for Scale-Induced Category Convergence across Populations. Nature Communications, 121, 327. 10.1038/s41467‑020‑20037‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20037-y [Google Scholar]
  11. Hamm, J. P., Johnson, B. W., & Kirk, I. J.
    (2002) Comparison of the N300 and N400 Erps to Picture Stimuli in Congruent and Incongruent Contexts. Clinical neurophysiology, 1131, 1339–50. 10.1016/S1388‑2457(02)00161‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00161-X [Google Scholar]
  12. Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J.
    (2017) Category Learning Judgments in the Classroom: Can Students Judge How Well They Know Course Topics?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 491, 80–90. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jacoby, L. L., Wahlheim, C. N., & Coane, J. H.
    (2010) Test-Enhanced Learning of Natural Concepts: Effects on Recognition Memory, Classification, and Metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 361, 1441.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., & Potapenko, A.
    (2021) Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with Alphafold. Nature, 596(7873), 583–589. 10.1038/s41586‑021‑03819‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Koriat, A.
    (1997) Monitoring One’s Own Knowledge During Study: A Cue-Utilization Approach to Judgments of Learning. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 1261, 349. 10.1037/0096‑3445.126.4.349
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2011) Subjective Confidence in Perceptual Judgments: A Test of the Self-Consistency Model. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 1401:, 117–39. 10.1037/a0022171
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022171 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012a) The Self-Consistency Model of Subjective Confidence. Psychological Review, 1191, 80–113. 10.1037/a0025648
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025648 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2012b) The Subjective Confidence in One’s Knowledge and Judgments: Some Metatheoretical Considerations. InM. J. Beran, J. L. Brandl, J. Perner, & J. Proust (Eds.), The Foundations of Metacognition (pp. 213–33). Oxford / New York: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646739.003.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646739.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2012c) The Relationships between Monitoring, Regulation and Performance. Learning and Instruction, 221, 296–98. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A.
    (2008) Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the “Enemy of Induction”?Psychological Science, 191. 585–92. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02127.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A.
    (2010) Spacing as the Friend of Both Memory and Induction in Young and Older Adults. Psychology and aging, 251, 498. 10.1037/a0017807
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017807 [Google Scholar]
  22. Krizhevsky, Alex, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton
    2012 Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, edited byF. Pereira, C.J.C. Burges, L. Bottou and K.Q. Weinberger, 1097–1105. New York: Curran Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D.
    (2011) Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (Erp). Annual review of psychology, 621, 621–47. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
  24. Legare, C. H., & Shtulman, A.
    (2018) Explanatory Pluralism across Cultures and Development. InJ. Proust & M. Fortier (Eds.), Metacogntive Diverisity: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198789710.003.0019
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198789710.003.0019 [Google Scholar]
  25. Martinez, M.
    (2013) Teleosemantics and Productivity. Philosophical Psychology, 261, 47–68. 10.1080/09515089.2011.625115
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.625115 [Google Scholar]
  26. Millikan, R. G.
    (1984) Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1989) Biosemantics. Journal of Philosophy, 861, 281–97. 10.2307/2027123
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2027123 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2000) On Clear and Confused Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613296
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613296 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2017) Beyond Concepts: Unicepts, Language, and Natural Information. Oxford / New York: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198717195.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198717195.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2022) Self-Signs and Intensional Contexts. Mind & Language: 1–19. 10.1111/mila.12436
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12436 [Google Scholar]
  31. Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J. & Foster, N. L.
    (2017) Do People Use Category-Learning Judgments to Regulate Their Learning of Natural Categories?Memory & Cognition, 451, 1253–69. 10.3758/s13421‑017‑0729‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0729-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L.
    (1990) Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings. InM. Bowerman (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 125–73). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, Inc..
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Polich, J.
    (2007) Updating P300: An Integrative Theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical neurophysiology, 1181, 2128–48. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 [Google Scholar]
  34. Proust, J.
    (2008) Epistemic Agency and Metacognition: An Externalist View. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1081, 241–68. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2008.00245.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2008.00245.x [Google Scholar]
  35. (2012a) The Norms of Acceptance. Philosophical Issues, 221, 316–33. 10.1111/j.1533‑6077.2012.00232.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2012.00232.x [Google Scholar]
  36. (2012b) Metacognition and Mindreading: One or Two Functions?InM. J. Beran, J. L. Brandl, J. Perner & J. Proust (Eds.), Foundations of Metacognition (pp. 234–51). Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646739.003.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646739.003.0015 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2013a) The Philosophy of Metacognition: Mental Agency and Self-Awareness. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602162.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602162.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013b) “Mental Acts as Natural Kinds”. InVierkant, ed, Decomposing the Will. Oxford / New York: OUP, 262–82. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746996.003.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746996.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L.
    (2015) The Power of Examples: Illustrative Examples Enhance Conceptual Learning of Declarative Concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 271, 483–504. 10.1007/s10648‑014‑9273‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9273-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rupert, R. D.
    (1999) Mental Representations and Millikan’s Theory of Intentional Content: Does Biology Chase Causality?The Southern journal of philosophy, 371, 113–40. 10.1111/j.2041‑6962.1999.tb00860.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1999.tb00860.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Shea, N.
    (in submission) Metacognition of Inferential Transitions.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
    (2010) Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 251, 359–93. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C.
    (2014) Conflict, Metacognition, and Analytic Thinking. Thinking & Reasoning, 201, 215–44. 10.1080/13546783.2013.869763
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.869763 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thorne, S. R., Quilty-Dunn, J., Smortchkova, J., Shea, N., & Hampton, J. A.
    (2021) Concept Appraisal. Cognitive Science, 451, e12978. 10.1111/cogs.12978
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12978 [Google Scholar]
  45. Thorne, S. R., Smortchkova, J., Quilty-Dunn, J., Shea, N., & Hampton, J. A.
    (2022) Is Concept Appraisal Modulated by Procedural or Declarative Manipulations?Frontiers in Psychology, 131, 774629. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.774629
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.774629 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J. & Jacoby, L. L.
    (2011) Spacing Enhances the Learning of Natural Concepts: An Investigation of Mechanisms, Metacognition, and Aging. Memory & Cognition, 391, 750–63. 10.3758/s13421‑010‑0063‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y [Google Scholar]
  47. Wahlheim, C. N., Finn, B. & Jacoby, L. L.
    (2012) Metacognitive Judgments of Repetition and Variability Effects in Natural Concept Learning: Evidence for Variability Neglect. Memory and Cognition, 401, 703–16. 10.3758/s13421‑011‑0180‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0180-2 [Google Scholar]
  48. Yan, V. X., Ligon Bjork, E. & Bjork, R. A.
    (2016) On the Difficulty of Mending Metacognitive Illusions: A Priori Theories, Fluency Effects, and Misattributions of the Interleaving Benefit. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 1451, 918. 10.1037/xge0000177
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000177 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00048.she
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coherence; concepts; consistency testers; evolution of cognition; metacognition
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error