Cognitive ontology in flux: the possibility of protean brains

References

• Aizawa, Ken. 2015. “What Is This Cognition That Is Supposed to Be Embodied?” Philosophical Psychology 28 (6): 755–775. doi:10.1080/09515089.2013.875280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, Michael L. 2014. After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, Michael L. 2015. “Mining the Brain for a New Taxonomy of the Mind.” Philosophy Compass, 10: 68–77. doi:10.1111/phc3.12155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apperly, Ian. 2011. Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of “Theory of Mind”. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruineberg, Jelle, and Erik Rietveld. 2014. “Self-Organization, Free Energy Minimization, and Optimal Grip on a Field of Affordances.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 1–14. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burge, Tyler. 2010. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Andy. 2016. Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colombetti, Giovanna. 2014. The Feeling Body: Affective Science Meets the Enactive Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deco, Gustavo, and Viktor K. Jirsa. 2012. “Ongoing Cortical Activity at Rest: Criticality, Multistability, and Ghost Attractors.” Journal of Neuroscience 32 (10): 3366–3375. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2523-11.2012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Paolo, Ezequiel. 2009. “Extended Life.” Topoi 28 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1007/s11245-008-9042-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Paolo, Ezequiel and Evan Thompson. 2014. “The Enactive Approach.” In The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition, edited by L. Shapiro, 68–78. New York: Routledge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engel, Andreas K., Pascal Fries, and Wolf Singer. 2001. “Dynamic Predictions: Oscillations and Synchrony in Top–Down Processing.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2 (10): 704–716. doi:10.1038/35094565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Shaun. 2001. “The Practice of Mind. Theory, Simulation or Primary Interaction?” Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (5–7): 83–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Shaun. 2008. “Direct Perception in the Intersubjective Context.” Consciousness and Cognition 17 (2): 535–543. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Shaun, Daniel D. Hutto, Jan Slaby, and Jonathan Cole. 2013. “The Brain as Part of an Enactive System.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (4): 421–422. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12002105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herschbach, Mitchell. 2008. “False-Belief Understanding and the Phenomenological Critics of Folk Psychology.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (12): 33–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutto, Daniel D. 2004. “The Limits of Spectatorial Folk Psychology.” Mind & Language 19 (5): 548–573. doi:10.1111/j.0268-1064.2004.00272.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutto, Daniel D. 2008. Folk Psychological Narratives: The Sociocultural Basis of Understanding Reasons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutto, Daniel D., Michael D. Kirchhoff, and Erik Myin. 2014. “Extensive Enactivism: Why Keep It All in?” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 1–11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutto, Daniel D., and Erik Myin. 2013. Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds Without Content. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelso, J. A. Scott. 1995. Dynamic Patterns. The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelso, J. A. Scott. 2009. “Synergies: Atoms of Brain and Behavior.” In Progress in Motor Control, edited by Dagmar Sternad, 83–91. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 629. New York, NY: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_5.
   Google Scholar
• Kirchhoff, Michael D. 2015. “Experiential Fantasies, Prediction, and Enactive Minds.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 22 (3–4): 68–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, Colin. 2012. “Cognitive Ontology and Region-Versus Network-Oriented Analyses.” Philosophy of Science 79 (5): 952–960. doi:10.1086/667843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koster-Hale, Jorie, and Rebecca Saxe. 2013. “Theory of Mind: A Neural Prediction Problem.” Neuron 79 (5): 836–848. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.08.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legrand, Dorothée, and Perrine Ruby. 2009. “What Is Self-Specific? Theoretical Investigation and Critical Review of Neuroimaging Results.” Psychological Review 116 (1): 252–282. doi:10.1037/a0014172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenartowicz, Agatha, Donald J. Kalar, Eliza Congdon, and Russell A. Poldrack. 2010. “Towards an Ontology of Cognitive Control.” Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4): 678–692. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01100.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahy, Caitlin E. V., Louis J. Moses, and Jennifer H. Pfeifer. 2014. “How and Where: Theory-of-Mind in the Brain.” Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 9 (July): 68–81. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2014.01.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noë, Alva. 2009. Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.
   Google Scholar
• Pessoa, Luiz. 2014. “Understanding Brain Networks and Brain Organization.” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (3): 400–435. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2014.03.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piccinini, Gualtiero. 2010. “The Mind as Neural Software? Understanding Functionalism, Computationalism, and Computational Functionalism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2): 269–311. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00356.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piccinini, Gualtiero. 2015. The Nature of Computation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Poldrack, Russell A., Yaroslav Halchenko, and Stephen José Hanson. 2009. “Decoding the Large-Scale Structure of Brain Function by Classifying Mental States Across Individuals.” Psychological Science 20 (11): 1364–1372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02460.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poldrack, Russell A., and Tal Yarkoni. 2016. “From Brain Maps to Cognitive Ontologies: Informatics and the Search for Mental Structure.” Annual Review of Psychology 67 (1): 587–612. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, Cathy J., and Karl J. Friston. 2005. “Functional Ontologies for Cognition: The Systematic Definition of Structure and Function.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 22 (3–4): 262–275. doi:10.1080/02643290442000095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, Hilary. 1967/1992. “The Nature of Mental States.” In The Philosophy of Mind, edited by Brian Beakley and Peter Ludlow, 51–58. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe, Matthew. 2009. “There Are No Folk Psychological Narratives.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 16 (6–1): 379–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, Michael A., Kevin Shockley, and Guy Van Orden. 2012. “Learning from the Body About the Mind.” Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (1): 21–34. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01163.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxe, Rebecca, and Anna Wexler. 2005. “Making Sense of Another Mind: The Role of the Right Temporo-Parietal Junction.” Neuropsychologia 43 (10): 1391–1399. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.02.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, Lawrence A. 2014. “Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds Without Content, by Daniel D. Hutto and Erik Myin.” Mind 123 (489): 213–220. doi:10.1093/mind/fzu033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberstein, Michael, and Anthony Chemero. 2012. “Complexity and Extended Phenomenological-Cognitive Systems.” Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (1): 35–50. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01168.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaulding, Shannon. 2010. “Embodied Cognition and Mindreading.” Mind & Language 25 (1): 119–140. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01383.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spivey, Michael. 2008. The Continuity of Mind. Oxford Psychology Series 44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steward, Helen. 2016. “Making the Agent Reappear: How Processes Might Help.” In Time and the Philosophy of Action, edited by Roman Altshuler and Michael J. Sigrist, 67–83. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy 83. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Strijbos, Derek W., and Leon C. de Bruin. 2012. “Making Folk Psychology Explicit. The Relevance of Robert Brandom”s Philosophy for the Debate on Social Cognition.” Philosophia 40 (1): 139–163. doi:10.1007/s11406-010-9288-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, Evan. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tye, Michael. 2000. Consciousness, Color, and Content. Representation and Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Varela, Francisco J. 1979. Principles of Biological Autonomy. New York: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Zahavi, Dan. 2011. “Empathy and Direct Social Perception: A Phenomenological Proposal.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (3): 541–558. doi:10.1007/s13164-011-0070-3.
   Google Scholar