Advertisement

Seeking for the Grasp: An Iterative Subdivision Model of Conceptualisation

  • Mauri KaipainenEmail author
  • Antti Hautamäki
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 405)

Abstract

Concepts are fundamental collective constructs of individual items that are capable of abstracting meaningfully homogeneous groupings of phenomena. This capability is a prerequisite for communication and action and gives structure to learning and memory. Our study is aligned with the vast paradigm that assumes embodied cognition, rooted in Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of perception (trans: C. Smith). Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1962), seminally articulated by Varela et al. (Embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991) and existing today in a number of variants that have been reviewed by Wilson (Six views of embodied cognition. Springer. Psychon Bull Rev 9(4):625–636, 2002). We argue that the faculty to conceptualise may spring from the ability of homo habilis to manage concrete actions in space and time, and we propose that at the root level, ‘grasping concepts’ in a cognitive perspective may have a lot to do with the process of ‘grasping objects’ from an operational position.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Writing this chapter was financially supported by The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies (Östersjöstiftelsen), Sweden.

References

  1. Baghramian, M. (2004). Relativism. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastille, A. Photograph of a lumberjack. Public domain, NARA record: 1422473, Wikimedia Commons.Google Scholar
  3. Cazeaux, C. (2017). Art, research, philosophy. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  4. Dawson, M. R. W. (2013). Mind, body, world: Foundations of cognitive science. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton, Balch & Co.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  7. Estivill-Castro, V. (2002). Why so many clustering algorithms — A position paper. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter.Google Scholar
  8. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Taylor & Francis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: On the geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gärdenfors, P. (2011). Semantics based on conceptual spaces. In Logic and its applications (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
  11. Hautamäki, A. (1986). Points of view and their logical analysis. Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  12. Hautamäki, A. (2015). Change, event, and temporal points of view. In M. V. Campos & A. M. L. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Temporal points of view, subjective and objective aspects (pp. 197–221). Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hautamäki, A. (2016). Points of view: A conceptual space approach. Foundations of Science, 21(3), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaipainen, M., Normak, P., Niglas, K., Kippar, J., & Laanpere, M. (2008). Soft ontologies, spatial representations and multi-perspective explorability. Expert Systems, 25(5), 474–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaipainen, M., & Hautamäki, A. (2011). Epistemic pluralism and multi-perspective knowledge organization. Explorative conceptualization of topical content domains. Knowledge Organization, 38(6), 503–514.Google Scholar
  16. Kaipainen, M., & Hautamäki, A. (2015). A perspectivist approach to conceptual spaces. In F. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces: The case for geometric knowledge representation (Synthese Library Volume 359). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kaipainen, M., & Hautamäki, A. (2016). Analysis and synthesis with a three-component inferential system: Augmenting the explanatory scope of Conceptual Spaces. AIC 4th international workshop on artificial intelligence and cognition. New York City, July 16–17 2016. Accessible at http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1895/paper11.pdf
  18. Kant, I. (1783). Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that will be able to present itself as a Science (orig. in German).Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, C. I. (1956). Mind and the world order, outline of a theory of knowledge. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  22. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (Colin Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and company.Google Scholar
  24. Parthemore, J. (2015). Specification of the unified conceptual space, for purposes of empirical investigation. Springer. In F. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces: The case for geometric knowledge representation (Synthese library volume 359) (pp. 223–244). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Parthemore, J. (2018). On the essentially dynamic nature of concepts: Constant if incremental motion in conceptual spaces. In Kaipainen, M., Zenker F., Hautamäki, A., & Gärdenfors, P. (Eds.), Conceptual spaces: Elaborations and applications. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Elsevier. Trends in Neurosciences, 21(5), 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlichting, M. L., Mumford, J. A., & Preston, A. R. (2015). Learning-related representational changes reveal dissociable integration and separation signatures in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. Nature Communications, 6, 8151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2015). The corporeal turn: An interdisciplinary reader. Andrews UK Limited.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (Eds.). (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (A Bradford Book).Google Scholar
  30. Social Progress Imperative. (2017). Social progress index. Data set. accessed in September 2017 from http://www.socialprogressindex.com/?tab=4
  31. Solomon, R. C. (1996). Nietzsche ad hominem: Perspectivism, personality and ressentiment. In B. Magnus & K. M. Higgins (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Nietzsche (pp. 180–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Gelder, T., & Port, R. F (1995). It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (Vol. 1, p. 43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). Embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Von Wright, G. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zenker F., & Gärdenfors P. (2015). Applications of conceptual spaces (Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 359). Springer. Synthese library.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perspicamus LTDHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Social Sciences and PhilosophyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations