 |
customer@davidpublishing.com |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
A Pluralistic Mind Approach to the Complementarity Between Schema and Language
XIE Jian-hua
Full-Text PDF
XML 707 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5313/2022.03.003
Taiyuan Normal University, Jinzhong, China
The traditional view is that understanding knowledge is based on language. Is language a sufficient condition for cognitive knowledge? Pluralistic mind holds that understanding knowledge can be obtained independently through schemata. Schema-based cognition is not the only component of cognitive structure. The important language and quasi language thinking play a great role in cognition. Expounding the relationship between schema-based cognition and language and quasi language like thinking can explain the cognitive complementarity between schema and language. It shows that with the increase of language and quasi language thinking, the form of thinking is continuously enhanced and transformed through schema-based cognition. Language and quasi language thinking are cognitive abilities different from schema cognition. They are relatively new additions to cognitive tools. Language and quasi language like thinking are of little use to animals which do not have enough schema forming ability.
pluralistic mind, schema, language, complementarity
XIE Jian-hua. (2022). A Pluralistic Mind Approach to the Complementarity Between Schema and Language. Philosophy Study, March 2022, Vol. 12, No. 3, 131-143.
Armstrong, D. (1968). A materialist theory of the mind (p. 74). London: Routledge.
Block, N. (1986). Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10, 615-678.
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition (p. 47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior (p. 27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind (explorations in cognitive science) (p. 37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology (p. 105). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ford, J. K. B., Ellis, G. M., Matkin, D. R., Balcomb, K. C., Briggs, D., & Morton, A. B. (2005). Killer whale attacks on minke whales: Prey capture and antipredator tactics. Marine Mammal Science, 21(4), 603-618.
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity (p. 47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (p. 73). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Minsky, M. (1985). The society of mind (p. 47). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1956). The logic theory machine: A complex information processing system. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 61-79.
Nieh, E. H., Schottdorf, M., Freeman, N. W., Low, R. J., & Tank, D. W. (2021). Geometry of abstract learned knowledge in the hippocampus. Nature, 595, 80-84.
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 131-193.
Xie, J. H. (2020). Research on consciousness from the perspective of transhumanism. Beijing: China Social Press.
Xie, J. H. (2021). The future: A transhumanist approach to consciousness. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, 4(5), 119-133.