Normativity and the origin of the mind
In recent years, scientists and philosophers have adopted a mode of research that seeks to improve our understanding of the mind by exploring how rudimentary forms of minimal cognition can be attributed to all living things and even to certain types of non-living systems. This form of research offers new perspectives on traditional questions about the essential features of the mental and the conditions of its emergence. Within this framework, our project focuses on three lines of contemporary research : enactivism, ecological psychology and teleodynamics.
The approach of all of them with respect to minimal cognition is guided by what we call the thesis of normativity. For these perspectives, the mind emerges when a system is capable of normatively guided behavior, that is, when it is able to make and act on the basis of valuational discriminations between better and worse.
Each line of research defines the nature and threshold of normative behavior differently:
→
For the enactivismnormativity arises from the intrinsic sensitivity of all living beings to the conditions of their existence.
For the ecological psychologyIn the case of non-living dissipative systems, a primitive form of normative behavior emerges that leads them to dissipate energy gradients as quickly as possible.
For the teleodynamicsThe normativity is realized in systems that can act for their own future benefit.
We believe that thesis rules and regulations , although promising, also presents serious difficulties. It is unclear how the three perspectives cited relate to one another and, more specifically, how precisely they understand the nature of the normativity that is required for the emergence of the mental. We propose to address this need for greater conceptual clarity and precision through a program of dialogue with philosophers representing a variety of perspectives on normativity and value.
In the first year, scientists representing each of these perspectives will offer their understanding of normativity and the conditions for its emergence through a series of seminars. In the second year, philosophers will respond to scientists from a variety of perspectives, including pragmatism, process Philosophy , Aristotelian Philosophy , and Leibnizian Philosophy . Finally, in the third year, scientists will come together to review their views in response to other scientists and philosophical critique.
THROUGH THIS INTERDISCIPLINARY
OF INTERDISCIPLINARY DIALOGUE,
WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE
THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES
1
Articulate the thesis of the regulations shared by these lines, clarifying their premises and objectives, as well as their main pitfalls and challenges.
2
Distinguish between different concepts and uses of value, normativity and other terms core topic to facilitate communication across lines and evaluate their main claims.
3
Assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of thesis of the regulations as expressed by the research.
4
Determine whether normatively guided behavior constitutes a distinct subject of causation or causal regime, or requires its elaboration.
5
Offer critiques and suggestions for improvement from a variety of philosophical perspectives on the nature of value and normativity.
Team
The Task Force
- Pau Monzón Marqués (Institute for Culture and Society)
- José Guilherme Carvalho de Souza (University of Navarra)
- Marek McGann (Mary Immaculate College)
- Mog Stapleton (East China Normal University)
- Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi (University of Warsaw)
- Pauline Jane Phemister (University of Edinburgh)
- Tina Röck (University of Edinburgh)
- James Andrew Dixon (University of Connecticut)
- Jonathan Delafield-Butt (University of Strathclyde)
- Terrence W. Deacon (University of California, Berkeley)
Finance
project PID2022-140659NB-I00 funded by MCIN/ AEI /10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF "A way to make Europe".
