<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/1746">
    <title>ERA Collection:</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1842/1746</link>
    <description />
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6294" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6175" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6163" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6160" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
    <dc:date>2013-05-20T11:30:37Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6294">
    <title>Slaying the chimera: a complementarity approach to the extended mind thesis</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6294</link>
    <description>Title: Slaying the chimera: a complementarity approach to the extended mind thesis
Authors: Farina, Mirko
Abstract: Much of the literature directed at the Extended Mind Thesis (EMT) has revolved around&#xD;
parity issues, focussing on the problem of how to individuate the functional roles and on&#xD;
the relevance of these roles for the production of human intelligent behaviour.&#xD;
Proponents of EMT have famously claimed that we shouldn’t take the location of a&#xD;
process as a reliable indicator of the mechanisms that support our cognitive behaviour.&#xD;
This functionalist understanding of cognition has however been challenged by opponents&#xD;
of EMT [such as Rupert (2009); Adams &amp; Aizawa (2009)], who have claimed that&#xD;
differences between internal, biological processes and putatively extended ones not only&#xD;
exist but are actually crucial to undermine the idea that inner and outer are functionally&#xD;
equivalent. This debate about how to individuate the functional roles has led to a&#xD;
treacherous stand-off, in which proponents of EMT have been trapped under the&#xD;
persistent accusation of causal/constitution conflation. My strategy for responding to this&#xD;
charge is to look precisely at those functional differences highlighted by critics of EMT. I&#xD;
reckon that extended cognitive systems are endowed with quite different properties from&#xD;
systems that are “brain bound” and argue that it is precisely these differences that allow&#xD;
human minds to transcend their biological limitations. I thus defend a complementarity&#xD;
version of the extended mind, according to which externally located resources and&#xD;
internal biological elements make a different but complementary contribution to bringing&#xD;
about intelligent behaviour [Sutton (2010)]. My defence of complementarity is based on&#xD;
both the phylogeny and the ontogeny of cognitive systems. I initially explore the&#xD;
interrelation between brain and cognitive development from a neuroconstructivist&#xD;
perspective [Quartz &amp; Sejnowski (1997); Mareshal et al. (2007)] and then argue that our&#xD;
brains do not have fixed functional architectures but are sculpted and given form by the&#xD;
activities we repeatedly engage in. As a result of repeated engagements in socio-cultural&#xD;
tasks, relevant brain pathways undergo substantial rewiring. Development thus scaffolds&#xD;
our brains, which become geared into working in symbiotic partnership with external&#xD;
resources. [Kiverstein &amp; Farina (2011)]. On these grounds, I call into question any&#xD;
tendency to interpret the human biological nature as fixed and endogenously pre-determined and side with proponents of DST [Oyama (2000); Griffiths &amp; Gray (2001)]&#xD;
and ontogenetic niche construction [Stotz (2010)] in arguing that we should think of&#xD;
natural selection as operating on whole developmental systems composed of living&#xD;
organisms in culturally enriched niches. [Wheeler &amp; Clark(2008)].&#xD;
Complementarity defences of EMT argue that many of the kinds of cognition humans&#xD;
excel at can only be accomplished by brains working together with a body that directly&#xD;
manipulates and acts on the world [Rowlands (2010); Menary (2007)]. I take Sensory&#xD;
Substitution Devices (SSDs henceforth) as my empirical case study. SSDs exploit the&#xD;
remarkable plasticity of our brains and with training supply a novel perceptual modality&#xD;
that compensates for loss or impaired sensory channel. I argue that the coupling with&#xD;
these devices triggers a new mode of phenomenal access to the world, something I&#xD;
propose to label as a kind of “artificial synaesthesia [Ward &amp; Meijer (2010)].This new&#xD;
mode of access to the world transforms our cognitive skills and gives rise to augmented&#xD;
processes of deep bio-technological symbiosis. SSDs therefore become mind enhancing&#xD;
tools [Clark (2003)] and a perfect case study for Complementarity. Having shown the&#xD;
relevance of SSDs for EMT, I then take up the possibility that these devices don’t just&#xD;
relocate the boundaries of cognition but may also stretch the bounds of perceptual&#xD;
awareness. I explore the possibility that perceivers using SSDs count as extended&#xD;
cognitive systems and therefore argue that the experiences they enjoy should be counted&#xD;
as extended conscious experiences.[Kiverstein &amp; Farina, (forthcoming)]. SSDs are quite&#xD;
often said to involve some form of incorporation.[Clark (2008)]. Rupert has challenged&#xD;
this idea and its relevance for EMT on the grounds of his embedded approach.&#xD;
Particularly, he has explained tool-use in terms of the causal interaction between the&#xD;
subject and its detached tool. In the final chapter of my dissertation I critically look at his&#xD;
objections and argue that all his arguments fail to apply to SSDs. In SSD perception in&#xD;
fact the tool becomes geared to work in symbiotic partnership with the active subject and&#xD;
then get factored into its’ body schema so that both of them come to form a single system&#xD;
of cognitive analysis.</description>
    <dc:date>2012-02-08T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6175">
    <title>A Defence of Robust Virtue Epistemology</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6175</link>
    <description>Title: A Defence of Robust Virtue Epistemology
Authors: Gardiner, Georgina
Abstract: Virtue-theoretic approaches to the theory of knowledge aim to explain the nature and value of knowledge by appeal to the cognitive character of the agent. Robust virtue epistemology holds that knowledge is ‘true belief attained through cognitive ability’, and that no other conditions, such as an additional anti-luck condition, are needed to capture the nature and value of knowledge. In this thesis I defend robust virtue epistemology.  &#xD;
 &#xD;
In chapter one I outline criteria of adequacy for an account of knowledge. I explain how an account of knowledge should fit with natural language use and intuitive knowledge attributions and should make intelligible why we have the concept of knowledge that we do. I also explicate four guiding platitudes for a theory of knowledge: that knowledge has value, &#xD;
that knowledge is immune from luck, that knowledge is the product of ability, and that we have some knowledge.  &#xD;
 &#xD;
In chapter two I explain the emergence of robust virtue epistemology from two of its &#xD;
predecessor views, process reliabilism and agent reliabilism, and I explain why robust virtue epistemology holds great promise as an account of knowledge. I next present a central criticism of robust virtue epistemology that has been pressed separately by Lackey and by &#xD;
Pritchard. I explain how this criticism brings into focus the importance of the through relation in understanding robust virtue epistemology.  &#xD;
 &#xD;
In chapter three I survey three attempts to elucidate this through relation, and I explain why none are adequate. In chapter four I consider Pritchard’s alternative to robust virtue epistemology, which he calls anti-luck virtue epistemology; this view posits both a virtue- theoretic condition and a separate anti-luck condition on knowledge. I argue that this view &#xD;
has weaknesses which warrant a return to robust virtue epistemology.  &#xD;
 &#xD;
In the fifth and final chapter I suggest two refinements to orthodox understandings of robust virtue epistemology. Firstly I propose that we understand the through relation using Mackie’s so-called ‘inus’ account of causation. Secondly I suggest that we understand cognitive abilities as relative to environments. I thus propose a new version of robust virtue epistemology, one which answers Lackey’s and Pritchard’s criticisms and so holds great promise for explaining the nature and value of knowledge.</description>
    <dc:date>2011-06-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6163">
    <title>The Equal Weight View, Agreement, and Commutativity</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6163</link>
    <description>Title: The Equal Weight View, Agreement, and Commutativity
Authors: Buckler, Rose
Abstract: This paper investigates Elga’s (2007) Equal Weight View (EWV) and its consequences when understood as a view requiring epistemic peers to ‘split the difference’ following disagreement.  The traditional disagreement debate is extended to consider the epistemic significance of agreement and diachronic applications of the EWV. It is shown that a weighted averaging approach to belief revision is inconsistent with peer agreement raising confidence; a result inconsistent with other conciliatory positions. Diachronic applications of the EWV can result in an agent’s credence varying as a function of contingent facts about the order in which epistemic peers and therefore higher-order evidence are encountered; a result which I argue is unacceptable for the EWV. I conclude that understanding the EWV as requiring ‘weighted averaging’ is often inconsistent with the spirit of the view and we should seek an alternative.</description>
    <dc:date>2011-11-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6160">
    <title>To what extent can the term ‘causes’ usefully be replaced by the term ‘is’?</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6160</link>
    <description>Title: To what extent can the term ‘causes’ usefully be replaced by the term ‘is’?
Authors: Donnelly, Stephen Philip
Abstract: Considers whether the relationship that holds between cause and effect is that of identity over time.</description>
    <dc:date>2011-11-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

