**5. The second cognitive revolution**

A development bearing on all these questions is what has been called "the Second Cognitive Revolution." Dreyfus was an important person in the history of this movement [9]. Rom Harré has summarized the direction of the movement by saying the earlier Cognitive Revolution was too focused on cognition as governed by formal rules and schemata. It had been an advancement over earlier understandings which interpreted the mind as simply receiving external stimuli passively. We do not just respond to our environment; we also have complex "representations" of it. The movement drew on the work of Turing to conceive of the brain as an "information processing device" ([10], p. 181). It was primarily digital in nature since digital computers contain representations of the world in their memories. By the mid-80's, it was clear that a more subtle understanding of language was necessary to really understand human cognition. This involved rejecting the whole Cartesian model of thought as something internal and seeing how it functions within life as a whole, especially in its social aspects. Ludwig Wittgenstein had a major role here with his concept of "language games," of language as a sort of set of recipes rather than formalizable rules. As Harré points out, the First Cognitive Revolution had been too trapped in "the presumptions of individualism" ([10], p. 181). In fact, social cognitive processes precede individual ones.

In Dreyfus's contribution to the same volume, he argues against the concept of representation altogether ([11], pp. 39-73). Drawing on the work of Walter Freeman, he argues for what he calls a "Heideggerian" or "Merleau-Pontian" artificial intelligence ([11], p. 58) to solve the "frame problem." Both machines and living organisms encounter facts in the world, but the frame problem asks how a machine might be programmed so it can assign significance to novel facts. As he puts it, speaking of a closely related "binding problem":

*How can the brain keep track of which facts in its representation of the current world are relevant to which other facts? … [A]s long as the mind/brain is thought of as passively receiving meaningless inputs that need to have significance and relevance added to them, the binding problem has remained unsolved and is almost certainly unsolvable ([11], p. 59).*

Drawing on Freeman's work with rabbits, Dreyfus, in line with his emphasis on embodiment, argues that organisms select relevant elements in the world based upon their prior experiences and purposes (feeding, defense, reproduction, etc.). He lays out Freeman's analysis of how "cell assemblies" in the animal are activated by sensory stimuli such as smell. These assemblies are self-organizing, bringing together different parts of the animal's brain and body, not just passive receptors but directed by its active concerns. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty, he calls the interaction of the organism's nervous system and the environment "basins of attraction" ([11], p. 62). The binding problem is simply a result of trying to interpret the animal from the researcher's perspective rather than that of the animal ([11], p. 61). He suggests machines might be designed to function the same way ([11], pp. 68-73).

In the following chapter of the volume, H.M. Collins raises some serious problems with Dreyfus's proposal [12]. The difficulty is that it does not explain what is unique about humans. As Terrence Deacon argued in his *Symbolic Species* [13]*,* symbolization is what is distinctive to humans. We share with animals an immediate "indexical" (in Peirce's terms) engagement with items in our environment (Seconds), but since we also use "symbols" (in Peirce's sense), involving conventional (shared) signifiers for general aspects of the world (Thirds), an element of representation seems inherent to our cognition. It would seem, in fact, that this symbolic element must be "digital" in Wilden's sense, in that it provides a stable, discrete representation of general aspects of the world while permitting us also to speak of particular things and persons (Seconds) and feelings and esthetic qualities (Firsts). As Peirce would say, it is only because we use the lower "iconic" and "indexical" forms of signs that symbols emerge as possible ([1], p. 115). The

**33**

he says:

ing or word processing.

they *can* happen at times.

*Analog, Embodiment, and Freedom*

rable from indexes).

consider signs [14].

**6. Implications for free will**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89595*

meaningfulness of symbols stands on their foundation. Peirce's pragmatic theory of meaning analyzes the meaning of concepts as generalizations of expected experience, which would have to take the form of indexes and icons ([1], 272-273. There Peirce seems to deny the iconic element, but if we understand the relationship between indexes and icons in his understanding, an iconic element is insepa-

So where does that leave Wittgenstein's conception of language as a collection of recipes, inextricably linked to our "embodied" ways of living? In reality, Peirce's theory is very close to it. Words are only meaningful to the extent we have "interpretants" for them, which are our habitual and fallible ways of seeing things as we

Another contribution in the same volume is "The Illusion of Free Will and its Acceptance" by Giuseppe Trautteur ([15], pp. 191-203). The purpose of the article is argue for what he calls "double feel" ([15], p. 199), the apparent truth that people can be both convinced that they have free choice and realize theoretically that there is no evidence for free will. He talks at length about the scientific evidence for free will and concludes it is not there. He even cites the experiments published by Kornhuber and Deecke which showed that neural commands initiating action precede our conscious awareness of making decisions ([15], p. 194). While he is aware of the indeterminacy of microscopic quantum events, he is convinced that

Trautteur expresses a great deal of sorrow about this and says it cannot help but undermine ethics and religion ([15], p. 200). Why are we creatures that seem to insist on this illusion? Trautteur entertains the proposals of Clore and Damasio that we are born with "markers" for "cognitive feelings" such as the sense of volition ([15], p. 198). To respond to this I would like to go back to something I mentioned at the beginning. Peirce criticized necessitarianism for denying that there is any increase in diversity in nature. Natural laws just rearrange the preexisting diversity. He thought this idea was intolerable for any view of the world that attempted to understand creativity in any sense. Firstness is manifested in the variety of the world, and perhaps one could even argue that "internet addiction" is somehow dependent on it. To borrow a phrase from Dreyfus, a person addicted to online content is not "detached and computer-like" ([7], p. 33). Our ability to get addicted appears to depend on computers showing us interesting things, and this depends on diversity. Without Firstness, the internet would be a bore. Especially with the development of the World Wide Web, digital computers can convey analog information like sights and sounds. They are not just for number crunch-

Peirce's theory was that lawfulness (Thirdness) was growing in the universe. As

*At present, the course of events is approximately determined by law. In the past that approximation was less perfect; in the future it will be more perfect. The tendency to obey laws has always been and always will be growing. ([1], p. 358).*

Perhaps we can move away from a focus on proving what determines each of our actions and consider the possibility that creativity itself is the best evidence of indeterminacy. Purely "free" choices do not have to happen constantly as long as

macroscopic events are strictly determined by natural law ([15], p. 193).

#### *Analog, Embodiment, and Freedom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89595*

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

tive processes precede individual ones.

speaking of a closely related "binding problem":

*certainly unsolvable ([11], p. 59).*

formal rules and schemata. It had been an advancement over earlier understandings which interpreted the mind as simply receiving external stimuli passively. We do not just respond to our environment; we also have complex "representations" of it. The movement drew on the work of Turing to conceive of the brain as an "information processing device" ([10], p. 181). It was primarily digital in nature since digital computers contain representations of the world in their memories. By the mid-80's, it was clear that a more subtle understanding of language was necessary to really understand human cognition. This involved rejecting the whole Cartesian model of thought as something internal and seeing how it functions within life as a whole, especially in its social aspects. Ludwig Wittgenstein had a major role here with his concept of "language games," of language as a sort of set of recipes rather than formalizable rules. As Harré points out, the First Cognitive Revolution had been too trapped in "the presumptions of individualism" ([10], p. 181). In fact, social cogni-

In Dreyfus's contribution to the same volume, he argues against the concept of representation altogether ([11], pp. 39-73). Drawing on the work of Walter Freeman, he argues for what he calls a "Heideggerian" or "Merleau-Pontian" artificial intelligence ([11], p. 58) to solve the "frame problem." Both machines and living organisms encounter facts in the world, but the frame problem asks how a machine might be programmed so it can assign significance to novel facts. As he puts it,

*How can the brain keep track of which facts in its representation of the current world are relevant to which other facts? … [A]s long as the mind/brain is thought of as passively receiving meaningless inputs that need to have significance and relevance added to them, the binding problem has remained unsolved and is almost* 

Drawing on Freeman's work with rabbits, Dreyfus, in line with his emphasis on embodiment, argues that organisms select relevant elements in the world based upon their prior experiences and purposes (feeding, defense, reproduction, etc.). He lays out Freeman's analysis of how "cell assemblies" in the animal are activated by sensory stimuli such as smell. These assemblies are self-organizing, bringing together different parts of the animal's brain and body, not just passive receptors but directed by its active concerns. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty, he calls the interaction of the organism's nervous system and the environment "basins of attraction" ([11], p. 62). The binding problem is simply a result of trying to interpret the animal from the researcher's perspective rather than that of the animal ([11], p. 61). He suggests machines might be designed to function the same way

In the following chapter of the volume, H.M. Collins raises some serious problems with Dreyfus's proposal [12]. The difficulty is that it does not explain what is unique about humans. As Terrence Deacon argued in his *Symbolic Species* [13]*,* symbolization is what is distinctive to humans. We share with animals an immediate "indexical" (in Peirce's terms) engagement with items in our environment (Seconds), but since we also use "symbols" (in Peirce's sense), involving conventional (shared) signifiers for general aspects of the world (Thirds), an element of representation seems inherent to our cognition. It would seem, in fact, that this symbolic element must be "digital" in Wilden's sense, in that it provides a stable, discrete representation of general aspects of the world while permitting us also to speak of particular things and persons (Seconds) and feelings and esthetic qualities (Firsts). As Peirce would say, it is only because we use the lower "iconic" and "indexical" forms of signs that symbols emerge as possible ([1], p. 115). The

**32**

([11], pp. 68-73).

meaningfulness of symbols stands on their foundation. Peirce's pragmatic theory of meaning analyzes the meaning of concepts as generalizations of expected experience, which would have to take the form of indexes and icons ([1], 272-273. There Peirce seems to deny the iconic element, but if we understand the relationship between indexes and icons in his understanding, an iconic element is inseparable from indexes).

So where does that leave Wittgenstein's conception of language as a collection of recipes, inextricably linked to our "embodied" ways of living? In reality, Peirce's theory is very close to it. Words are only meaningful to the extent we have "interpretants" for them, which are our habitual and fallible ways of seeing things as we consider signs [14].
