Until recently, cognitive science
(and the philosophy of it) has been very much dominated by the
‘Representationalist approach’, the basic idea of which, as Wheeler puts it, is
that ”there are internal representation… in the cognizer’s mind, entities or
structures (the representations) that stand in for (typically) external
states of affairs” (p.6). For its acceptability amongst the researchers of the
discipline, Wheeler labels this approach to cognitive science as the ‘orthodox
cognitive science’. However, this predominant approach to cognitive science is
presently challenged by a new approach in the discipline, which is known as
‘Embodied-Embedded cognitive science’ [henceforth, the ‘EEC’ approach], which
takes the brain, body and environment as the integral parts of a cognitive
system. And in Reconstructing the Cognitive World, Wheeler attempts to
spell out the inadequacy of the orthodox cognitive science, and offer an
alternative by drawing insights from the EEC approach. All this may
sound relatively familiar, and Wheeler’s book may appear as if it were just
another book on the arguments against orthodox cognitive science. But, it isn’t
so. Wheeler’s interesting twist lies in is his defense of the EEC approach,
which he argues is Heideggerian in nature. Thus, what Wheeler is trying to do
in his book is to articulate and explicate the EEC approach, and to show how
Heideggerian philosophy can help to illuminate the underlying principles.

Wheeler’s strategy is simple and
straightforward. First, by re-investigating the works of Descartes, Wheeler
explicates the underlying principles of Descartes’ philosophy of mind. And from
them, Wheelers draws out eight principles that are at work in Cartesian
Psychology (p38/53). After surveying some research from (or, closely related to
the family of) orthodox cognitive science, he argues that although orthodox
cognitive science has done away the dubious tenets of Descartes’ philosophy of
mind, e.g. dualism, it remains committed to the eight principles he has
identified. Wheeler’s main conclusion is the following: as orthodox cognitive
science is committed to the subject-object dichotomy, and sees cognitive system
as a general purpose reasoning machine which gets its inputs from perception
and bodily states, and computes the inputs to generate relevant outcomes (this
is often demonstrated by the computer analogyox cognitive science), it will
simultaneously commit to the principle of explanatory disembeddedness and
disembodiement, and, therefore, the orthodox cognitive science is, by its
nature, context-independent.

Then, Wheeler proceeds to
introduce the working framework for the EEC approach, i.e. the dynamical
systems, which he defines as ”any system in which there is state-dependent
change, where systemic change is state dependent just in case the future
behavior of the system depends causally on the current state of the system”
(p.91). What’s more, Wheeler argues that the computational system, which
is generally regarded as the working framework for the representational
approach, is actually a subset of dynamical systems. This will be important, as
Wheeler’s aim is not to overthrow the representationalist approach entirely,
but to point out that orthodox cognitive science, by focusing on this approach,
has misplaced their explanatory priority of our cognitive abilities.

In the remaining chapters,
Wheeler begins his task of defending EEC, and to tell his story of how
Heideggerian philosophy helps to illuminate the underlying principles of this
approach. Wheeler begins by embracing the possibility of collaboration between
Heideggerian philosophy and cognitive science. In the course, he unfolds the
Heideggerian philosophy for human science, which consists of two inter-related
spectrums of explanation: (i) the constitutive explanation, which aims to
identify and clarify the constitutive character of human agency; and (ii) the
empirical explanation, which is about the human agent’s relations to the
character. Although the two spectrums of explanation cannot be reduced to one
another, a paradigm shift in either of them is going to affect the other. After
that, Wheeler explains the core of Heideggerian philosophy that is relevant to
cognitive science, i.e. the modes of encounter. For Wheeler (and Heidegger),
there are three modes of encounter between agents and various entities in the
world: (i) readiness-to-hand, (ii) un-readiness-to-hand, and (iii)
presence-at-hand. Readiness-to-hand describes the encounters of which an entity
is equipment for our use, and such use of the equipment is hitch-free; the term
‘smooth coping’ is used to describe circumstances in which our use of equipment
for our ends is hitch-free. In ‘smooth coping’, Wheeler claims that there is no
room for the subject-object dichotomy, as the agent is unaware of any object
with determinate properties, and there is only the experience of the on-going
task. When will an agent become aware of the determinate properties of the
entities then? According to Wheeler, it is only when one takes a theoretical
attitude towards the entities by investigating them out of the context
[as in scientific investigations] that one will become aware of the properties.
But (i) and (iii) are the two extreme modes of encounter in Heideggerian
philosophy, the mode an agent is normally in is something in-between, i.e.
‘un-readiness-to-hand’, which happens when ‘smooth coping’ is disturbed, and
the agent has to become a practical problem solver.  Although not as pure
as ‘readiness-to-hand’, ‘un-readiness-to-hand’ remains inclined towards
‘readiness-to-hand’, but not ‘presence-at-hand’, as an agent does not attempt
to investigate the entities out of a specific context, and it remains as ‘an
equipment’ (or, a search for an equipment) for the agent’s purpose. It is this
‘un-readiness-to-hand’, Wheeler argues, that constitutes our everyday
cognition. And it is clear that, if the Heideggerian is right, then cognitive
science is by its very nature context-dependent. Still, the question remains:
what will the Heideggerian’s context be? Wheeler provides us an answer by
spelling out Heidegger’s world. In a nutshell, ‘world’ is the totality of happenings
in which an activity took place; and, a better label for this notion of world
is ‘background’ of/for an activity (p.147). As the Heideggerian world is
intended to describe the agent’s background against the specific purpose she is
going to achieve by her activity (or by her use of equipment), the question
concerning normativity naturally follows. It is here, Wheeler suggests, that
the importance of culture and biological selection in constituting Wheeler’s
Heideggerian world. Here, Wheeler’s exposition of Heideggerian philosophy and
its relevance to cognitive science is, indeed, very interesting. However, he
does not seem to have offered any positive argument for his Heideggerian claim
that cognitive science should prioritize everyday cognition over other
cognitive abilities, except by citing Heidegger. One may, of course, happily
admit that it is an important project to figure out how everyday cognition
works, but, nonetheless, refuse to join Wheeler in thinking that it has its
priority over the representation-involving cognition.

Having explained the modes of
encounters and the world, then the introduction of Heideggerian philosophy
which is relevant to cognitive science Wheeler moves on to draw comparison
between the Heideggerian framework (or EEC approach) and the Cartesian
framework, and see which one fares better in the discipline in question.
Wheeler starts by examining Heidegger’s critique and Dreyfus’s critiques of the
Cartesian view. After showing the failures of Heidegger’s critique, and some of
the Dreyfus’s view, Wheeler illustrates what, he thinks, is the most serious
problem for cognitive science, i.e. the frame problem, which Wheeler has
borrowed from Fodor’s definition, that ”the problem of putting a ‘frame’
around the set of beliefs that may need to be revised in the light of specified
newly available information” (p.178). The problem for orthodox cognitive
science, as he argues, is that it relies on the context-independent
representation, but an agent faces dynamic and changing contexts in everyday
cognition; context-independent representation is, by its nature, impoverish to
handle everyday cognition.

So, if the context-independent
representation cannot do any good to cognitive science, what else can? Wheeler
introduces ‘action-oriented representation’, which is ”determined by the fact
that they (the representations) figure in a process in which what is extracted
as contextually relevant is fixed by the needs and the previous ‘experiences’
(…) of a (mildy) intelligent agent, acting in its particular environment, and
given its distinctive navigational ‘project”’ (p.197), as an alternative to
orthodox cognitive science. But then, drawing evidences from research in
cognate disciplines, e.g. evolutionary robotics, he identifies a phenomenon
which is known as (non-trivial) causal spread. Briefly, causal spread describes
those phenomena which ”turn[s] out to depend, in unexpected ways, on causal
factors external to the system” (p.200). In cognitive science, this means that
intelligent behavior is dependent on bodily and environmental factors. This
paves the way for Wheeler to set up his Heideggerian framework of cognitive
science, which puts great emphasis on the world, i.e. the background [of an
activity] in which the agent is involved. He, then, provides us with a detail
analysis of how Heideggerian philosophy can shed light on the EEC approach.

But, it is not enough merely to
recover the Heideggerian principles within the EEC approach. For Wheeler, it is
more important, as the title aptly suggests, to reconstruct cognitive science
by proving that a Heideggerian framework is the proper one for the discipline.
How can Wheeler prove this? He attempts to do so by showing that a Heideggerian
framework can handle the frame problem. As the frame problem appears to be a
deadlock for any framework that is Cartesian in nature, if Wheeler succeeds in
showing that a Heideggerian framework can handle the problem then it
will be superior to the Cartesian, and a paradigm shift may possibly occur.
Yet, in handling the frame problem, Wheeler’s strategy is not to provide
a reply to the problem, but to dissolve it before it arises. He claims that
once the researcher does away Cartesian biases and shifts to a Heideggerian
framework, the frame problem no longer arises. Wheeler offers a 3-step plan for
this reconstuction: (S1) refuse to take the seductive Cartesian route from the
manifest context sensitivity of intelligence to the need for detailed inner
representations; (S2) provide an enabling explanation of thrownness; and (S3)
secure adaptive flexibility on a scale sufficient to explain open-ended
adaptation to new contexts, but do so without a return to Cartesian
representation-based general-purpose reasoning. These three steps, as Wheeler
explains, are available once we drop the Cartesian framework for everyday
cognition, as the world [and thus the context] is necessarily built-in to an
explanation for intelligent behavior, and, therefore, it is no longer necessary
to find a way to bring in the context-dependency of everyday cognition
[it is also no longer necessary to accommodate the role of bodily and
environmental factors via inner, context-independent representation]. In this
way, then, the frame problem no longer emerges. However, as I understand the
frame problem, i.e., as a problem for empirical investigation, or as a working
mode of Artificial Intelligence, it is a problem of specifying how an agent
correctly collects and represents the necessary information, not for a
particular task, but for general behaviors in everyday life. Of course,
Wheeler’s action-oriented representation fits perfectly to explain an agent’s
intelligent behavior in a specific task, and is relieved from the need to
capture the context in which an agent’s intelligent behavior is taking place,
as the action-oriented representation itself specified and limited the range of
information.. But, Heidegger’s world, the context, is arbitrary and ambiguous,
and, as Wheeler sees it, one cognitive task is essentially connected to another
cognitive task and so on. The world, or the context, then will become
enormously big for a working model of cognitive science. Thus, those who favor
Wheeler’s action-oriented representation must admit that either it only works
in laboratory-controlled circumstances, but not in everyday cognition, or a
better definition of the world, or context, has to be given before we can
evaluate its success.

By taking cognitive science and
Heideggerian philosophy side by side, I think Wheeler’s book is an interesting
and thought-provoking one, relevant to cognitive scientists, philosophers of
mind and cognitive science and philosophers who work in the Continental
tradition. Although I do not agree with his view on the frame problem, I think
Wheeler has raised many important questions for those who work in orthodox
cognitive science. Furthermore, I believe that Wheeler’s book will be an
important one, as it opens up the conceptual spaces for a new paradigm for
cognitive science.

© 2006 Pak Hang Wong

Pak Hang Wong was formerly an
Assistant College Lecturer at The Community College at Lingnan University.
His research interests are in Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, and
Philosophy of Mind.

Categories: Psychology, Philosophical