MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063953513 · doi:10.1353/utq.0.0438

The Extended Mind: The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind, and Culture (review)

2009· article· en· W2063953513 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Joel Walmsley

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonVariety (cybernetics)FablePsychologyCognitive scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyLiteratureArtComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Extended Mind: The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind, and Culture Joel Walmsley (bio) Robert K. Logan. The Extended Mind: The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind, and Culture. University of Toronto Press. vi, 320. $39.95 Near the beginning of his marvellous book, Robert Logan recounts the Buddhist fable of the three blind men who were invited to inspect an elephant. Separately, they feel the trunk, the leg, and the tail, and respectively conclude that the elephant is a snake, a tree, and a rope. Logan uses this story to remind us that language is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, and thus a synthetic or integrative approach is essential. But it seems to me that this parable is doubly appropriate for the book as a whole. On the one hand, Logan makes a convincing case that the mind is jointly constituted by factors that are best studied from a wide variety of perspectives. On the other hand – emphasizing the word emergence in the book’s title – there is a very important sense in which one cannot understand the mind as a mere sum of its parts, and holism of some kind is warranted. The idea that the mind is ‘extended’ has seen a growing and laudable interest in recent philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Logan’s book is a welcome and helpful addition to this literature, especially since his primary focus is on the oft-neglected phenomenon of language. Logan’s construal of language is a broad one – intended to encompass, among other things, speech, writing, mathematics, media, and the Internet – but the common theme is that, in each example, human cognition is inextricably linked with phenomena that, in some sense, lie ‘out there’ in the world. On the one hand, this makes Logan’s view a substantial and powerful alternative to views that seek to explain language primarily in terms of ‘internal’ mechanisms (such as Chomsky’s language acquisition device hard-wired with universal grammar). On the other hand, Logan’s view consequently emphasizes the way in which language and culture can co-develop, as a result of externally located linguistic forms. It is in this respect – concerning the origins, development, and interplay between language and culture – that Logan’s contribution to the literature is most important. In his view, there is a kind of ‘bootstrapping’ effect; Logan sometimes describes this relationship as ‘circular,’ but it is a virtuous, not vicious, circle. Simultaneously, language and culture create the conditions of possibility for the development of each other. Just as mangrove seeds take root in shallow water and trap floating debris in order to form the very land they need for subsequent survival, so do thoughts expressed in language take root in cultures, in order to develop into further thoughts, language, and culture; the causal relationship is continuous, reciprocal, and dynamic. Most importantly, according to Logan, this is [End Page 146] a relationship that is best understood holistically; trying to understand one element in isolation from the others (as much of cognitive science has done in the past, and as was the case with the blind elephant-examiners) will never permit the kind of ‘Grand Unification’ picture that Logan seeks. My one reservation (and perhaps this is, in part, the personal bias of a philosopher) concerns the question of whether Logan’s central equation ‘Mind = brain + language + culture’ is supposed to capture a metaphysical thesis about the nature of mind, or a methodological hypothesis about how we ought to study it. The radical claim that the mind is constituted by factors that lie beyond the physical boundaries of the human organism has quite a different flavour from the (weaker) view that we ought to study cognition by paying more attention to its extended features. The latter is a most welcome shift in focus from cognitive science’s traditional concentration on the inner mechanisms of thought, and the multiple strands of evidence that Logan provides make a convincing case for adopting it. But it’s not clear that it entails the much stronger (metaphysical) identity claim that seems to be implied by Logan’s equation. In any case, the book presents a compelling and important addition both...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207