The debate between the defenders of explanatory unification and explanatory pluralism has been ongoing from the beginning of cognitive science and is one of the central themes of its philosophy. Does cognitive science need a grand unifying theory? Should explanatory pluralism be embraced instead? Or maybe local integrative efforts are needed? What are the advantages of explanatory unification as compared to the benefits of explanatory pluralism? These questions, among others, are addressed in this Synthese’s special issue. In the introductory paper, (...) we discuss the background of the questions, distinguishing integrative theorizing from building unified theories. On the one hand, integrative efforts involve collaboration between various disciplines, fields, approaches, or theories. These efforts could even be quite temporary, without establishing any long-term institutionalized fields or disciplines, but could also contribute to developing new interfield theories. On the other hand, unification can rely on developing complete theories of mechanisms and representations underlying all cognition, as Newell’s “unified theories of cognition”, or may appeal to grand principles, as predictive coding. Here, we also show that unification in contemporary cognitive science goes beyond reductive unity, and may involve various forms of joint efforts and division of explanatory labor. This conclusion is one of the themes present in the content of contributions constituting the special issue. (shrink)

I propose a new approach to the constitutive problem of psychology ‘what is mind?’ The first section introduces modifications of the received scope, methodology, and evaluation criteria of unified theories of cognition in accordance with the requirements of evolutionary compatibility and of a mature science. The second section outlines the proposed theory. Its first part provides empirically verifiable conditions delineating the class of meaningful neural formations and modifies accordingly the traditional conceptions of meaning, concept and thinking. This analysis is part (...) of a theory of communication in terms of inter-level systems of primitives that proposes the communication-understanding principle as a psychological invariance. It unifies a substantial amount of research by systematizing the notions of meaning, thinking, concept, belief, communication, and understanding and leads to a minimum vocabulary for this core system of mental phenomena. Its second part argues that written human language is the key characteristic of the artificially natural human mind. Overall, the theory both supports Darwin’s continuity hypothesis and proposes that the mental gap is within our own species. (shrink)

Man’s intellectual capacity remains an enigma, as it is both the subject and the means of analysis. If one is to assume quantum-wave dualism in physics then the state of the world depends on the instruments we use for observation. The “paradoxical” nature of investigating human cognition may thus bear inherent limitations. However, studying cognitive models may be less of a seemingly inconsistent endeavor, if “contradictions” may be classified. In this brief exposition, a variety of aspects related to cognitive models (...) are discussed. The authors maintain that modeling the functional “paradoxical nature” of human cognition remains the greatest challenge. Therefore, consciousness aside, models of conscious systems, or rather conscious models of conscious systems, are the main objects of exploration. While intentional systems may seem a good starting point for such an exploration, they lack two important constructs: volition and reflexion. Both concepts, and especially volition, unlike rationality for example, are less discussed in the discourse of cognitive models. Although not devoted to volition or reflexion, this work proposes an increased research interest in these areas. (shrink)