- One of the newest theories in cognitive psychology is the idea of embodied cognition. In classical cognitive theory, input from the sensory modalities (hearing, touching, taste, etc.) is wired into the brain where it is transformed into a symbolic language (bottom-up processing). This symbolic language is amodal, meaning that it is not composed of the language of the senses (modal), much in the same way that the words of the english language only stand for things 'out there.' The amodal language is what the brain uses to form cognitions, process information, and do operations. Then, information comes out from the brain (top-down processing) to directly influence sensory reception. Top down processing is the first step in the distinction between sensation and perception. This is a crude explanation of classical theory.
- Newer theory, embodied cognition is dramatically different. Although it hasnt been excepted widely by the professional community, there is something about it so compelling. Embodied cognition rests on the principal that the transduction phase of turning sensory modality information into symbolic amodal information never happens. So far, the gamut of classical theory has proved adequate in explaining most of cognition except a few basic problems - one of which is the grounding probem: How do the brain's amodal symbols interface with the sensory and motor processes. Another problem is that there has been as of yet no evidence that amodal symbols are stored or present in the brain.
- The task of embodied cognition is to prove that there is no need at all for these amodal symbols. If it could, it would have the support of the rule of parsimony to back it up (a.k.a. ockham's razor). Parsimony is simply a preference for simplicity. Embodied cognition is a more simple theory than classical views. Ockham's razor states that given any two equally explanatory theories the one that is the simplest should be chosen. In other words, why assume the presence of amodal symbols if they are not needed.
- This is how embodied cognition theory works: When we think about something, say a basketball, what happens in our brain is that the neural pathways that were active during earlier perceptions of basketballs are active again. So, parts of our visual cortex might flare up, the ones that were active when we saw basketballs, our tactile areas would be active as our brain runs the simulation of bouncing a basketball, etc. Whatever is most salient at the time, is what is activated. So if the context is smells, and I say basketball, whatever part of your brain that was active during the presentation of a basketball's odor, becomes active again. Some people have a gift for smells, they can think of something and smell it, or taste it. I imagine that a professional chef can smell and taste chutney when she thinks of it. If i say, 'weed.' some of you may smell weed, and may even get tingles of what it feels like to be high.
- embodied cognition brings something else to our knowledge of the mind: another sensory modality: introspection. Thus, the brain, when remembering a 'feeling' can run the simulation so it can be processed all over again.
- This stuff is brand new. But it has some amazing potential. For one thing it does further work towards knitting the tear in the fabric of reality rended when descarte became widely accepted. Without a further barrier composed of amodal (not body) symbols, there is less of a gap between the mind and the body. Thus we are closer to accepting the power of our thoughts in changing the way we feel.
- Secondly, it more firmly enmeshes the inside and the outside. If embodied cognition becomes an acceptable discourse among the scientific community, we can all accept as truth, that we really do create our own worlds. Think about it, if the brain activity involved in sensation is the same activity that is involved in conceptual processing, then who we are, which is just a conception after all, is just a composite of our sensory experiences. There is no difference between what we experience and who we are. No seperation between the planet and ourselves.
- I think we all have hope and act in that manner anyhow.
- Related to this is that the proliferation of abstract concepts into our everyday lives as real entities will die down. Concepts like 'Self,' as already aluded to, 'Truth,' 'Freedom,' 'Love,' 'God,' will become more grounded, more situated in actual experience. Meaning we wont be able to harbor them as possessions, but that they will only be truly revealed in our actions. We will no longer be chasing happiness in abstract entities, we will stop eating the menu, throw away our maps, and keep our eyes on the road ahead.
If anyone is interested in grounded cogntion let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i thought this was wonderful. great sunday conversation over coffee.
i'd love to hear what you think about applying the concept of embodied cognition to recovery from traumatic experiences or addiction. also, how might embodied cognition affect people with multiple personality disorder, or other dissociative conditions, who experience multiple realities?
Good questions. In terms of traumatic experiences, embodied cognition would only serve to further explain traditional therapies. Many clinical issues where the core problem is fear, are treated from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. They work on the thoughts (cognitions) and the behaviors. Traumatic experiences cause problem later on in life when individuals experience new things which are similar to the experience they had before. This is called stimulus generalization.
The story of Little albert is a class case of stimulus generalization. He was a baby who was conditioned to associate a neutral stimulus with a fear-evoking stimulus. Albert was afraid of extremely loud noises (which is expected of a baby). With repeated pairings of loud noises and a fuzzy stuffed toy, Little albert began to associate the fear that arose from the loud noise to the fuzzy toy - to the point that with presentations of the fuzzy toy alone albert would show a fear response. This is classical (pavlovian) conditioning. Furthermore, He would show a fear response to other stimuli that were similar in nature. For example, other fuzzy things. This is stimulus generalization.
Well I think traumatic experiences work on a similar principle. The scary thing about traumatic experience is the loss of control. Later on in life, someone who has had traumatic experiences may continually avoid experiences where control is perceived to be diminished. They may also, in unavoidable experiences of perceived diminished control have panic attacks.
One way to treat this kind of behavior is through a behavioral strategy called systematic desensitization. It works on the exact same principle of stimulus generalization, but in an opposite emotional valence. The fearful stimulus is repetitively associated with relaxing stimuli. This trains the individual to relax in a state of panic, and it reduces the earlier learned negative associations through a conditioning effect called 'extinction.' If we look at little albert again, we can see this effect. Although he had learned that little fuzzy animals were associated with frightful stimuli, he could similarily unlearn them. We could pair fuzzy animals with a positive stimuli, like the presence of the mother, for example. Or, simply through further repetitive presentations of the fuzzy stimulus without the original fearful stimulus (loud noise) the negative learned association would become extinct. In other words, the bad effects would wear off.
To bring this into an embodied cognition perspective imagine what is happening to someone who is experiencing fear due to perceived loss of control. Rapid heart rate, flushing of the skin, catastrophic thoughts. In embodied cognition all cognitions reactive the same neural pathways in the primary sensory cortices that were active during the actual sensing of the object. For example, a watermelon imagined will activate visual, olfactory, and gustatory, neural pathways that were active when I really ate watermelons in real life. I am essentially reliving the watermelon. So, to imagine a situation with perceived loss of control is to a certain extent, to relive that earlier traumatic event. Given this, we can certainly understand why someone would develop a persistant fear.
Through the process of systematic desensitization, the reactivation of the sensory information associated with the traumatic event, if it was coupled with other sensations, like even breathing, body relaxing, realistic cognitions would serve as a learning experience for the body.
I will explain systematic desensitization in further detail.
You are deathly afraid of snakes.
Learn these relaxation exercises until you produce a calm controlled mind and body at will.
Now we create a list of goals.
1. imagining a rubber snake
2. imagining a real snake
3. imagining being in a ball park with a snake
4. imagining being in a living room with a snake
5. imagining being 2 feet away from a snake
6. imagining touching a snake
7. imagining holding a snake
8. imagining a snake crawling on you
9. being in a room with a snake
10. being 2 feet in a room with a snake
.. etc ... etc..
SO the goals get progressively more real.
Now we undertake to complete those goals and we do not move onto the next until, by using the relaxation skills, you are able to bring about a calm state of mind and body while performing each task.
Now in terms of embodied cognition, at each task new neural pathways are being created, so that originally perceived fearful stimuli are being linked with calming stimuli.
When I think of snake, the neural pathways in my sensory association corteces may activate the fearful pathways, but they might also activate my newly learned positive pathways. I will have a more encompassing and realistic simulation for snake than before.
Now, i wonder if the steps i indicated earlier which are just imagery tasks would change pathways as well as the tasks which are real events. It stands true considering that in both cognition and perception the same neural pathways are involved. Furthermore, I have been reading information in the literature that suggests that just imagining a physical task can make you better at it.
In fact this is one of the tenants of sports psychology. If you practice imagining throwing a shotput with perfect form, chances are that your form will actually improve because the neural pathways will already be carved in.
Post a Comment