1.

Cognitive Science
Definitions; the term
Types of; domains
Roots; influential works
Disciplinary interrelations
Cognitive science and philosophy
Cognitive science and psychology
Cognitive science and social sciences
Cognitive anthropology
Cognitive science and linguistics
Cognitive science and the arts
!verview
1.1. Definitions; the Term
"ro#a#ly the earliest entry in an !$D dictionary of the word %cognitive& is from 1'() and
shows it to cover facts and processes %pertaining to the action of knowing;& it seems to
have #een used in the conte*t of discussions a#out "lato and his theories of knowledge+ so
that this latter concept+ knowledge is presuma#ly the foundation of cognitive science.
,eorge -uger+ in his 1../ Cognitive Science0 the Science of 1ntelligent Systems defines
cognitive science as the study of intelligence or of mind+ which o#viously enlarges the
sphere to contain more than knowledge as such. 1n their 1... "hilosophy in the 2lesh+
,eorge -akoff and 3ark 4ohnson define the term %cognitive& as #eing %used for any kind
of mental operation or structure that can #e studied in precise terms;& one can notice that
it refers not only to processes 5operation6+ #ut also to the source 5structure6 of those
processes+ and more significantly+ that the study can #e e*pressed in %precise terms+& which
we will return to as it points directly to the nature of science.
7e may continue our e*ploration #y looking at %precise& dictionary definitions. Thus0
Random 8ouse+ 9::);%the study of the precise 5n.#.6 nature of different mental tasks and
the operations of the #rain that ena#le them to #e performed+ engaging #ranches of
psychology+ computer science+ philosophy+ and linguistics.& The interdisciplinary nature of
the concept involves many more domains than the ones listed in the second part of the
definition+ while %precise& comes up again and+ moreover+ %tasks& seems to #e referring to
a direct relationship with the e*ternal world+ also involving some kind of determinism+
cultural or social . 5<otice that our own use of pro#a#ility or presuma#ility terms and
constructions indicates a tendency to avoid the imperatives of precise6. The =merican
8eritage Dictionary 59::)6 leaves out %precise& and prefers %processes&0 %The study of the
nature of various mental tasks and the processes that ena#le them to #e performed&
5%performance& may and may not #e used here as a counterpart or corollary of
%competence&6. = simplified view is offered #y 7orld <et0 %the field of science concerned
with cognition; includes parts of cognitive psychology and linguistics and computer science
and cognitive neuroscience and philosophy of mind.& !ne may wonder here;and
elsewhere;if science is cognition or cognition is science+ so that what we really are talking
a#out is the cognition of cognition+ or metacognition.
The term as such;cognitive science;seems to have #een coined in 1.>? #y Christopher
-onguet@8iggins+ while commenting on a report of the state of =rtificial 1ntelligence at the
time+ and soon after+ the Cognitive Science Society was founded and the Aournal Cognitive
Science was pu#lished. 7ikipedia may not #e often recogniBed for relia#ility+ #ut the
definition it offers seems to #e the most satisfactory0 %Cognitive science is the
interdisciplinary study of the cognitive processes underlying the acCuisition and use of
knowledge. 1t draws from converging evidence and methodology in diverse fields+ including
psychology+ neuroscience+ philosophy+ computer science+ anthropology and linguistics.& -et
us notice that it refers to #oth the use and the acCuisition of knowledge and that the
emphasis is on interdisciplinary.
= Cognitive Science "rogram of the Dniversity of Delaware takes the definition closer to
its origins in the past few decades0 %Cognitive science studies the human mind viewed as a
computational process.& So+ having invented the computer and its operational processes+
the human mind has come to notice itself at work in a machine representation of itself0 thus
the #rain contemplates and studies itself #y means of such an artificial reflection of its
physiognomy. =rtificial intelligence has #rought to the foreground the fact that+ so far+ the
only possi#le model of human thinking as an instrument of information processing is the
metaphor of #rain@as@computer+ which the #rain itself has come to recogniBe; so in this
kind of study+ instead of seeing the computer as a #rain@like device for the process of
5sym#olic6 information+ the mind is regarded as similar to an information processor; and
thus+ the stimulus@response #ehavior of the human #eing is determined #y his mind Aust as
the input@output #ehavior or computers is determined #y various programmes; software
and hardware represent the image and proAection of mind and #ody. =nd this creates the
radical functionalist Cuestion as to whether cognition is independent of its neuronal #asis+
or there is a su#tly intimate connection #etween cognition and this #asis; neuroscience is
still in dou#t regarding this computational metaphor+ #ut the field is still in its early stages+
and at the same time rapidly e*panding; and+ of course+ the num#er of Cuestions regarding
the #asic components of cognitive processes+ or whether they are su#sumed #y a common
mental mechanism+ or the relationship #etween cognition and the physical apparatus
increases with the growing num#er of answers proposed.
ConseCuently+ for a more comprehensive definition and description of cognitive science+
one has to return to an internet source 5geog.ucs#.edu6 #y means of the -ycos Retriever0
%Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field that has emerged in the past few decades at
the intersection of a num#er of e*isting disciplines including psychology+ linguistics+
computer science+ philosophy+ and neuroscience. 1tis the interdisciplinary study of
thinking+ perception+ and intelligent #ehavior+ as determined Aointly #y the nature of the
environment and #y the internal architecture of the intelligent agent+ whether human+
animal+ or machine 7ith the advent of Cognitive science theoretical insights and
methodologies have #een shared among disciplines+ and interdisciplinary interaction has
#ecome the hallmark of the field. 1t is a field founded on the principle that new knowledge
should #e developed at the intersection among disciplines+ and that colla#oration will serve
to preserve and strengthen all participating disciplines.&
1.9.Types of; Domains
Thus one of the main pro#lems to #e tackled and eventually solved #y cognitive science is
to understand how the mind resides in or inha#its the #rain+ and the approaches to this
may #e
a. analytic+ i.e. analysis of #oth natural and artificial such thinking systems in order to
find whatever functional constraints on cognition that come out from our systems for
knowledge representation0
#. e*perimental + i.e. finding practical ways of distinguishing among various;
sometimes contradictory;theories of information processing in these natural andor
artificial intelligence systems; one freCuent e*perimental techniCue is that of
#uilding a computational model whose #ehavior can #e compared+ for instance+ to
one found in nature+ in humans or animals;
c. synthetic + i.e. constructing hardware and software in artificial machines that e*hi#it
various aspects of intelligent #ehavior.
!ne specific type that is more and more freCuently mentioned is that of $m#odied
Cognitive Science+ also related to the contri#utions of 4ohnson and -akoff+ who+ in turn+
owe their ideas a#out thinking and speaking machines to =lan 3. TuringEs 1.':
%Computing 3achinery and 1ntelligence.& This domain of research aims directly at
e*plaining the functioning of mechanisms that underlie intelligent #ehavior #y modeling
systems #ased on mind and #ody as a single entity and uncovering principles of intelligent
#ehavior; the latter do not concern us here+ #ut they have #een identified as0 the principle
of parallel+ loosely@coupled processes+ the principle of sensory@motor coordination+ the
principle of cheap design and redundancy+ the principle of ecological #alance+ and the
value principle 5connectionism in ,erald $delmanEs Darwin 111 ro#ot6.
The 31T $ncyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences 5ed. Ro#ert =. 7ilson and 2rank C. Feil6
identified the sic domains for the cognitive #rain sciences0 516 computation intelligence+ 596
culture+ cognition+ and evolution+ 5?6 language and linguistics+ 5/6 neuroscience+ 5'6
philosophy+ and 5)6 psychology. 7e will soon descri#e these comple* interrelationships+ #ut
here may #e mentioned some of the effects and implications of this research0 new
information a#out how individuals think and learn+ applications in learning+ teaching+ and
testing methods+ designing intelligent tutoring systems+ developing manufacturing systems
for industry+ medical diagnosis especially in cases of damaged #rains+ many;even though
not identified yet;#enefits for social sciences
= rather traditional view would see cognitive science as either theoretical 5modeling and
e*plaining the phenomena of memory+ perception+ reasoning and language+ and looking at
organisms as #iological information processing systems6 or applied 5the a#ove mentioned
educational and social uses+ mainly school instruction6.
1.?.Roots; 1nfluential 7orks
1t may safely #e said that the roots of cognitive science go as far #ack as those of philosophy
and psychology+ i.e. as far #ack as "lato and =ristotle+ #oth of whom sought to understand
the nature of human knowledge. 1n the 1>
th
and 1(
th
century+ such philosophers as Ro#ert
Gurton 5The =natomy of 3elancholy+ 1)916 Thomas 8o##es 5-eviathan+ 1)'16+ 4ohn
-ocke 5=n $ssay Concerning 8uman Dnderstanding+ 1).:6+ ,eorge Gerkeley 5Treatise
Concerning the "rinciples of 8uman Fnowledge+ 1>1:6+ David 8ume and 1mmanuel Fant
dedicated mush thought and effort on the matter of thought and mind0 Rene Descartes is
credited as an important forerunner for contemporary thinking for having distinguished
#etween #ody 5Res e*tensa+ hard6 and mind 5Res cogitans+ soft6 as two separate entities
constituted of two different su#stances. 1n the second half of the 1.
th
century 7ilhelm
7undt and 7illiam 4ames moved these kinds of study into the realm of e*perimental
psychology0 this was soon followed #y #ehaviorism 54ohn G. 7atson and G. 2. Skinner6+
which claimed that #ehavior as a result of consciousness rather than consciousness itself
could and should #e studies 5notice effects and prolongations in literature and literary
study;the #ehaviorist novel+ for e*ample6.
Cognitive science proper #egan in the 1.':s when the a#ove perspective started to
change as 4ohn 3cCarthy+ 3arvin 3insky+ =llen <ewell+ and 8er#ert Simon founded and
developed the field of artificial intelligence and other researchers came upon the idea that
what was happening in artificial intelligence could #e used to e*plain how the human mind
works0 the -ogic Theorist of <ewell+ Shaw+ and Simon worked on the #asis of the
fundamental 5metaphoric6 analogy of computer science+ i.e. the human mind works like
computer programs in which algorithms are applied to data structures.
Contemporary names in cognitive science include philosophers 5Daniel Dennett+ Douglas
8ofstadter6+ philosopher@linguists like 4ohn Searle+ 4erry 2odor+ <oam Chomsky+ and
,eorge -akoff+ and psychologists like 4ames 3cClelland and Steven "inker. !therwise+
the Cognitive Science 3illenium "roAect offers a list of the one hundred most influential
works in cognitive science from the twentieth century0 of which the following may #e
highlighted for their unchallenged importance0
1.:);Sir Charles S. Sherrington+ The 1ntegrative =ction of the <ervous System;
1.9>;Sigmund 2reud+ The 1nterpretation of Dreams;
1.?:;4ean "iaget+ The ChildEs Conception of the 7orld;
1.?/1.)/;-ev Hygostky+ Thought and -anguage;
1./';G. 2. Skinner+ The !perational =nalysis of "sychological Terms;
1./(;<or#ert 7iener+ Cy#ernetics+ or Control and Communication in the =nimal and
the 3achine;
1./(;C. $. Shannon+ = 3athematical Theory of Communication;
1.':;=. 3. Turing+ Computing 3achinery and 1ntelligence;
1.'?;-udwig 7ittgenstein+ "hilosophical 1nvestigations;
1.');GenAamin -ee 7horf+ -anguage+ Thought+ and Reality;
1.');4. R. Gruner+ 4. 4. ,oodnow+ ,. =. =ustin+ = Study of Thinking;
1.'>;<oam Chomsky+ Syntactic Structures;
1.):;7. Ross =sh#y+ Design for a Grain0 The !rigins of =daptive Gehavior;
1.)9;Thomas S. Fuhn+ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions;
1.>9;=. <ewell I 8. =. Simon+ 8uman "ro#lem Solving;
1.>?;=. R. -uria+ The 7orking Grain0 =n 1ntroduction to <europsychology;
1.>';3. 3insky+ = 2ramework for Representing Fnowledge;
1.>(;7. Fintsch I T. 7. van DiAk+ Toward a 3odel of Te*t Comprehension and
"roduction;
1.(:;4. R. Searle+ 3inds+ Grains and "rograms;
1.(?;4. 2odor+ The 3odularity of 3ind0 =n $sssay on 2aculty "sychology;
1.();=. Gaddeley+ 7orking 3emory;
1.(>;,. 3. $delman+ <eural Darwinism0 The Theory of <euronal ,roup Selection;
1.(>;Daniel C. Dennett+ The 1ntentional Stance;
1..:;=. <ewell+ Dnified Theories of Cognition;
1..1;Daniel C. Dennett+ Consciousness $*plained;
1..';$. 8utchins+ Cognition in the 7ild.
1./. Disciplinary 1nterrelations
1./.1. Cognitive Science and "hilosophy
=lmost any introduction to cognitive science #egins #y emphasiBing 5we have seen6 its
highly interdisciplinary character+ and mainly the fact that it consists of or colla#orates
with philosophy+ psychology+ social sciences+ various studies of the arts+ anthropology+
linguistics and others that we cannot approach here 5neuroscience+ artificial intelligence
and computer science+ mathematics+ neuro#iology+ physics6.
1n their 1.() 3ind over 3achine 8u#ert -. Dreyfus and Stuart $. Dreyfus trace the
links #etween cognitive science and classic philosophy0 according to them+ "lato+ ,alileo+
Descartes+ -ei#niB+ Fant and 8usserl are among the predecessors of artificial intelligence
and+ implicitly+ of cognitive science. 8ere they are+ in one relevant passage0
%Fant had a new idea as to how the mind worked. 8e held that all concepts were
really rules. 2or e*ample+ the concept for dog is something like the rule0 1f it has
four legs+ #arks+ and wags its tail+ then itEs a dog 8usserl+ who can #e regarded
as the father of the information@processing model of the mind+ argued that
concepts were hierarchies of rules+ rules which contained other rules under them.
2or e*ample+ the rule for recogniBing dogs contained a su#rule for recogniBing
Tails. 8usserl also saw that such rules would have to tell us not a#out any parti@
cular dog+ or dog in general+ #ut a#out the typical dog. =ll the #asic ideas used
#y 3insky 5see a#ove6 and his students of artificial intelligence were in place.&
5p./6
This intricate relationship #etween artificial intelligence and the study of philosophy
may point to the fact that cognitive science is+ in fact+ philosophy+ and that even though the
conscious #eings we call researchers cannot+ most likely+ create artificial consciousness+
they can think a#out their own consciousness+ like Fant+ in the language of philosophical
concepts on one hand+ and in a programming language on the other; anything that may #e
descri#ed as computer phenomenology will indicate that any artificially constructed mental
phenomenon has the a#ility to reveal itself; intentionality itself+ however+ poses pro#lems
that artificial intelligence cannot as yet grapple with+ though it may simply 5J6 mean the
correspondence #etween an algorithm and data structures; we can only remem#er that+ as
far #ack as 1)'1+ Thomas 8o##es decided that %#y ratiocination 1 mean computation.& The
whole pro#lem seems to reside in the fact that the attri#utes that philosophy studies as
peculiar to mind and intelligence may #e+ sooner or later+ thought of as specific to alien
forms of %life+& such as advance computer systems. 2or the time #eing+ it seems that
cognitive science can have some general contri#utions to the philosophy of science #y such
accounts provided #y -indley Darden 5Reasoning in Giological Discoveries+ 9::)6+ Ronald
,iere 5in ". Caruthers+ S. Stich I 3. Seigal+ eds.+ The Cognitive Gasis of Science+ 9::96+
<ancy <ersessian 5in idem6 and "aul Thagard 5Computational "hilosophy of Science+
1.((6
1./.9. Cognitive Science and "sychology
Since cognitive science always includes such topics as those studying perception+ memory+
attention+ and consciousness;all of them well@defined fields within psychology;it has
#een presumed that cognitive science simply represents a new voca#ulary for psychological
analyses. 1n their $volutionary "sychology0 = "rimer -eda Cosmides and 4ohn Too#y
propose the following five principles in evolutionary psychology+ each of which represents a
link #etween psychology and cognitive science0 1. The #rain is a physical system; it
functions as a computer; its circuits are designed to generate #ehavior that is appropriate
to your environmental circumstance 5the metaphor of mind@as@computer turns the #rain;
a #iological@physical system whose operation is governed #y the laws of physics and
chemistry;into an image or imitation of its own creation+ the computer; the term was
coined #y Dlrich <eisser in 1.)>+ postulating that the mind has a certain conceptual
structure; cognitive psychology reAects introspection as a method of investigation and
favors scientific or phenomenological methods+ such as 2reudian psychology0 it also differs
from #ehaviorist psychology #y acknowledging the e*istence of such internal mental states
as #elief+ desire or motivation6. 9. The Darwinian proposition that manEs neural circuits
have #een designed #y natural selection to solve pro#lems that our ancestors faced during
our speciesE evolutionary history 5see "rinciple '6. ?. Consciousness is Aust the tip of the
ice#erg; most of what goes on in our minds is hidden from us. =s a result+ our conscious
e*perience can mislead us into thinking that our circuitry is simpler than it really is. 3ost
pro#lems that we e*perience as easy to solve are very difficult+ in fact;they reCuire very
comple* neural circuitry. This points to the pro#lem of awareness or conscious e*perience
which we have as a result of innumera#le specialiBed mechanisms that gather sensory
information from the world+ analyBe and evaluate it+ identify inconsistencies+ fill in gaps+
and finally decide a#out its meanings. /. Different neural circuits are specialiBed for solving
different adaptive pro#lems0 thus+ there are neural circuits specialiBed for vision+ for
hearing+ for taste and smell+ and so on;each of which is like a mini@computer designed to
solve one pro#lem only0 these #iological machines are therefore cali#rated to various
environments in which they evolved. '. !ur modern skulls house a stone age mind; even
very simple changes in our #rainsE circuitry can take many thousands of years. These
principles+ Cosmides and Too#y claim+ may help one ask four fundamental Cuestions0 1.
7here in the #rain are the relevant circuits and how do they workK 9. 7hat kind of
information is #eing processed #y these circuitsK ?. 7hat information@processing programs
do these circuits em#odyK /. 7hat were these circuits initially designed to accomplishK
These and other principles and Cuestions were developed+ as a matter of fact+ in a
reconceptualiBation of psychological relationships that has come to #e defined as cognitive
psychology; on the other had+ the %appropriateness& as a concept refers to adaptive
pro#lems and many other pro#lems which are+ however+ the #y@products of circuits that
were initially designed to solve adaptive pro#lems. 3oreover+ in recent years+ these
innovative contri#utions to psychological thinking have #een referred to as the second
cognitive revolution or evolutionary psychology 5see a#ove6+ or philosophy of mind and
psychology+ including such researchers as 3ark 4ohnson+ ,eorge -akoff+ Shaun
,allagher+ Daniel Dennett+ Thomas 3etBinger+ Richard Dawkins+ Stephen "inker+ 3ichael
Cole+ 3atthew Ratcliffe+ 2rancisco Harela
= #ranch of neuropsychology that aims to understand how the structure and function of
the #rain relates to specific psychological processes is called cognitive neuropsychology;
particular emphasis is placed on studying the cognitive effects of #rain inAury or
neurological illnesses. !ne of the important implications here is that certain cognitive
processes;knowledge of one language+ for instance;could #e damaged separately from
others+ which means that they are controlled #y distinct+ independent neural processes;
lo#otomy might cause one individual to lose completely one of the several languages he
could speak #efore the operation. !#viously+ another implication is that such processes
could #e localiBed to specific areas of the #rain.
1nteresting studies in neurpsychology have #een carried on on autistic patients+ who lack
completely the a#ility to understand other minds; psychologists developed intriguingly
fascinating studies on the simulation theory+ interaction theory+ the deconstructive theory
of autism or of #lindsight+ for e*ample.
2inally+ another field is that of the study of emotion and emotional contagion or
emotional communication; it is not as yet clear that emotions reCuire the representation of
mental states and it may very well #e that the emotional system is a relatively independent
one and is a#le to respond to othersE similar communication #y directly picking up on that
specific emotion rather then #y representing it somehow; thus emotional communication
may form part of an analog system of communication+ including gestures and #ody
language+ which evolved in parallel with representational thinking; 2rancis 2. Steen 51..>6
refers+ in this respect+ to decoupled thinking and focuses+ in his The Time of
Dnremem#era#le Geing+ on the a#ility to read other minds.
1./.?. Cognitive Science and Social Sciences
3ark Turner+ in The Chronicle Review of !cto#er '+ 9::1 starts from the assumption that
the fundamental topic of study in cognitive science is the study of mental events+ and these
events can occur in single #rains or a multitude of #rains+ and they also can have an
e*tremely short or an e*tremely long history; thus they find their place in rhetoric+ political
science+ economics and sociology+ providing the defining pro#lems of social sciences in
general; rhetoric in particular and a theory of rhetoric is a#solutely indispensa#le to
scholars in social sciences. The Cuestions that Turner identifies as specific to cognitive
science are social science Cuestions as well0 %7hat are our #asic cognitive operationsK 8ow
do we use them in Audgment+ decision+ action+ reason+ choice+ persuasion+ e*pressionK Do
voters know what they need to knowK 8ow do people chooseK 7hat are the #est
incentivesK 7hen is Audgment relia#leK Can negotiation workK 8ow do cognitive
conceptual resources depend on social and cultural locationK 8ow do certain products of
cognitive and conceptual systems come to #e entrenched as pu#licly shared knowledge and
methodK& Sociologists+ as a matter of fact+ almost always refer to mental events.
1././. Cognitive =nthropology
=nd so do anthropologists+ since cognitive anthropology focuses on the intellectual and
rational aspects of culture; the ethnoscience studies at Lale in the 1.':s seem to have #een
at the origins of cognitive anthropology+ stressing principles and discovery procedures for
investigating culturally specific semantic systems and native categories. The #asic
categories of research performed in cognitive anthropology are semantics+ knowledge
structures+ models and systems+ and discourse analysis. $thnoscience itself developed
analytical and ethnographic methods for the semantic studies of terminology systems; later
research concentrated on studying 5Dan Sper#er+ 4ames Spradly6 how various categories of
cultural knowledge are connected to each other and how categories located in individual
minds are related to cultural categories of whole communities; these accounts of cultural
categories+ on the #asis of generative linguistics+ developed intricate models and systems in
the 1.>:s; finally computer aided discourse analysis came into play as a tool for entering
the intricacies of such categories+ with interest in such fields as religious sym#olism 5David
Fronenfeld6+ theories of emotions and others; gradually+ these linguistic preoccupations
were replaced #y psychological approaches+ especially in the work of such anthropologists
as Roy DE=ndrade and =. Fim#all Romney.
1./.'. Cognitive Science and -inguistics
=s already suggested+ the #eginnings of cognitive anthropology are rooted in the
relationships #etween older anthropological studies and linguistics; the intellectual and
rational aspects of culture are investigated through studies of language use+ and the
methodology of cognitive anthropology originated in attempts to fit linguistic methods into
social anthropology; the main assumption is that semantic categories marked #y linguistic
forms are related to meaningful cultural categories; it is #etween semantics and pragmatics
that cognitive general anthropology moves+ while it is known+ from linguists+ that a #roader
understanding of pragmatics is #ased on a detailed study of semantics. Such authors as
7ar ,oodenough and 2loyd -ouns#ury focus on and analyBe categories like status
o#ligations+ rights+ privileges+ powers and the role therein of linguistic utterances. To cut a
long story short+ every#ody knows that language is the main;if not the only;entry point
for studying cognition+ and in the last half@century or so studies have #een dedicated to the
knowledge and use of language as a cognitive phenomenon.
=long with many other authors+ that range from Saussure onwards+ 3arkus $gg 59::?6
lists five principles according to which language relates to the world+ to culture+ to reality0
language cannot refer to o#Aective structures in the world 5ar#itrariness of the linguistic
sign6; language consists of sym#olic units that activate conceptual structures; o#Aective
reality is not independent from human cognition; meaning is something in the #rain+ not in
the world; conceptual structure and real world are only indirectly related.
=n almost independent #ranch in the scientific study of cognition is speech pathology+
which focuses on disordered language and language deficits; it may include references to
the neuro#iology of the #rain+ a#normal psychology+ anatomy and physiology of speaking+
language acCuisition+ acoustic phonetics and psycholinguistics in general. 8owever+ the
many implications of the relationships #etween linguistics and cognitive science 5including
cognitive linguistics6 reCuire much more than these spare notes.
1./.). Cognitive Science and the =rts
The scientific study of the arts+ or anything like a scientific aesthetics has long #een a
su#Aect of de#ate+ since+ as Susan Sontag+ for e*ample+ thought a num#er of decades ago+
human imagination depends on categories that escape rational investigation; however+ with
the advent of cognitive science+ the #order #etween psychology and the philosophy of mind
#egan to #e erased and many thought it was time for scientific theory to #e applied in the
arts as well; the key fields are those of imagination 5is imagination #ased upon some kind of
knowledgeK6+ emotions 5what is the relationship #etween emotions and illusionK6 and
representation 5how is information processed so that it may #ecome representationK6; other
issues involve Cuestions a#out interpretation 5why+ for instance+ is the interpretation of a
great work endlessK6+ translation and languages 5is all thought linguistic in natureK6+
narration 5is narrative thinking the #asis of all types of human thinkingK6+ and the ineffa#le
5can anything and everything #e e*pressed in words or in other forms of interpretationK6
1mportant work has #een done in investigating the possi#ilities of cognitive science in the
field of arts and aesthetics0 Stephen Fosslyn and Richard =nderson+ 2rontiers of Cognitive
<euroscience 51..'6; 4enni =. !gden+ 2ractured 3inds 51..)6; Stephen "almer+ Hision
Science 51...6; Diana Raffman+ -anguage+ 3usic and 3ind 51..?6; Semir Meki+ 1nner
Hision 51...60 #at again+ the answer to the Cuestion as to what cognitive science can tell
us a#out art and aesthetics is much to comple* and complicated for a short e*cursion like
the present one.
1.'.!verview
1n spite of all that has #een shown a#ove+ the interdisciplinary nature of cognitive science is
largely unrealiBed+ since though it makes freCuent use of something that might #e called a
scientific method+ including simulation and modeling+ the e*act relationship #etween
cognitive science and other fields is far from #eing agreed on #y all authors. 3oreover+
since the e*planation of consciousness;and self@consciousness;is its main o#Aective+ it
remains unlikely that all neuronal processes in our heads correlate with consciousness and
any simple definition of the latter concept remains an illusion. 1t also remains unclear if a
certain language system is essential for consciousness; and finally+ it is only pro#a#le that
consciousness correlates only to some 5whatK6 e*tent with the degree of comple*ity of any
nervous system. =nd there are+ of course+ Cuite a num#er of Cuestions still waiting for an
answer0 7hy are we conscious and self@consciousK 1s there anything like virtual
consciousness+ and if there is+ what is essential for it and what is the nature of visual
representationK 8ow can the pro#lems that puBBle philosophers of Cualia #e solvedK Can
there #e a full account of the manner in which su#Aective e*periences arise from cere#ral
processesK =nd last+ #ut essentially not least+ how is meaning generated #y the #rainK
1n so far as we are concerned here+ the main contri#ution of cognitive science is in the
philosophy of language and rational epistemology+ thus constituting a su#stantial #ranch of
modern linguistics; as well as the fact that there are already significant developments
toward a cognitive literary theory or poetics.
DRAGOS AVADANEI -COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND THE HUMANITIES, Ed. Universitas
XXI, Iai, 2010