Scientific concepts are defined by metaphors. These metaphors determine what attention is and what count as adequate explanations of the phenomenon. The authors analyze these metaphors within 3 types of attention theories: (a) “cause” theories, in which attention is presumed to modulate information processing (e.g., attention as a spotlight; attention as a limited resource); (b) “effect” theories, in which attention is considered to be a by-product of information processing (e.g., the competition metaphor); and (c) hybrid theories that combine cause and (...) effect aspects (e.g., biasedcompetition models). The present analysis reveals the crucial role of metaphors in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and the efforts of scientists to find a resolution to the classic problem of cause versus effect interpretations. (shrink)

Every moral tradition and every moral theory necessarily presupposes some specific view of how the mind works and of what a person is. The cognitive sciences constitute our principal source of knowledge about human cognition and psychology. Consequently, the cognitive sciences are absolutely crucial to moral philosophy. They are crucial in two basic ways. First, any plausible moral system must be based on reasonable assumptions about the nature of concepts, reasoning, and moral psychology. Second, the more we know about such (...) important issues as the role of emotion in moral deliberation, the nature of moral development, and the most realistic conceptions of human well‐being, the more informed we will be in our moral thinking. Empirical investigations into mind thus provide a way of examining the presuppositional link between the is of mental functioning (e.g., how concepts are structured, the nature of rational inference, the role of emotion in reasoning) and the ought of moralitys – that is, the normative claims of our ethical system. (shrink)

We are beings of the flesh. Our sensorimotor motor experience is the basis for the structure of our higher cognitive functions of conceptual cognition and reasoning. Consequently, our subjectivity is intimately tied up with the nature of our embodied experience. This runs directly counter to views of self-identity dominant in contemporary cognitive science. I give an account of how we ought to understand ourselves as incarnates, and how this would change our view of meaning, knowledge, reason, and subjectivity.

Turner argues that our most original and impressive literary achievements depend on the same conceptual and linguistic capacities that underlie our most mundane and unoriginal uses of language. He therefore proposes a "cognitive rhetoric" that would ground all studies of language and literature on what the cognitive sciences have revealed about how the mind works. Turner's guiding thesis is that human cognition is fundamentally embodied and imaginative, because "a human being has a human brain in a human body in a (...) physical environment that it must make intelligible if it is to survive". (shrink)