You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Mark of the Cognitive and the Coupling-Constitution Fallacy: A Defense of the Extended Mind Hypothesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02061 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giulia Piredda |
| Abstract |
Clark and Chalmers (1998) introduced the extended mind hypothesis, according to which some mental states can be realized by non-biological external resources. A lively debate has flourished around this hypothesis, connected with the issues of embodiment, embeddedness, situatedness and enaction (cf. Clark, 2008; Menary, 2010; Shapiro, 2011). Two of the main criticisms addressed to the functionalist version of the extended mind thesis have been the so-called "coupling-constitution fallacy" and the alleged lack of a mark of the cognitive (Adams and Aizawa, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010a,b). According to Adams and Aizawa, extended cognition is a logical possibility, but is not instantiated in our world. Following this view, they defend a "contingent intracranialism," based on a specific mark of the cognitive that they propose. In this paper I intend to show that neither criticism is effective against the extended cognition thesis. In particular: the mark of the cognitive proposed by Adams and Aizawa does not secure contingent intracranialism;the coupling-constitution fallacy criticizes extended cognition on precisely the point the theory was intended to defend: namely, that the best way to individuate cognitive systems, given a minimal mark of the cognitive, is to rely on coupling relations between agents and environmental resources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 28% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 24% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,001
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,476
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,054
of 438,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#464
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.