The+Extended+Mind--Mind+and+World+Relation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo

The thesis known as "The Extended Mind" suggests that our mind literally extends beyond our brain and beyond our body to external objects in the world. For instance, when I text a friend, the thoughts in my mind influence my friend's activity and causes my friend's body to act in various ways, be it laughing, crying, or becoming waxed which thereby causes my mind to act in corresponding ways. According to the extended mind thesis, to the degree that my mind interacts with another external object, like my friend's body, my mind extends to that body.

In their article "The Extended Mind", Andy Clark and David Chalmers lay out two examples: Inga and Otto. Inga is able to recall information from her own memory, and may introspect at any given moment to access knowledge she may need (e.g. the location of the museum she wants to get to, which happens to be on 53rd street). While the information was not in her "occurrent" belief/thought (i.e. she was not immediately thinking about 53rd Street), the belief/information existed somewhere in her mind waiting to be accessed. On the other hand, Otto is an Alzheimer's patient and must rely on information from his environment to help him structure his life. So, in order to record new information, instead of committing it to memory (because he is incapable of this) he writes it down in a notebook which he carries with him wherever he goes. Likewise, instead of introspecting, he consults his notebook for things he wants to "remember" (e.g. the location on the museum he wants to go to, the same one on 53rd Street). Thus, "just as Inga had her belief that even before she consulted her memory, it seems reasonable to say that Otto believed the museum was on 53rd St. even before consulting his notebook. For in relevant respects the cases are entirely analogous: the notebook plays for Otto the same role that memory plays for Inga. The information in the notebook functions just like the information constituting an ordinary non-occurrent belief; it just happens that this information lies beyond the skin" (AM 185).

Examples of the Extended Mind
1) A day planner works as an extension of the mind in that those things one writes in it influence thought. If Deborah has a paper due in two weeks, she will write this down in her planner. If in a week from now, she consults her planner because she forgets when her paper is due, it will influence her thoughts. If she wrote the wrong date down, she won't know the difference. This is because she relies on her planner as a source of memory and direct thoughts. 2) In order to solve a math problem too complex to solve just in our heads, we have to physically write out our mental steps. As we think, we write out a step in the math, which in turn, provides a foothold to think on, allowing us to progress to another step of the problem, which we think about and write down. What is on the paper (our "work") is the proof of our cognition, and often times, without it, we would not be able to solve the equation. 3) When playing Scrabble, instead of merely mentally re-arranging the tiles, we physically move them, an action which augments our mental facilties, allowing us to more naturally see what words we can create.

**Arguments for the Extended Mind Thesis**

**__ An Illustration to Support the Extended Mind Thesis __** As mentioned above, some examples of items that serve as an extension of the mind are a day planner, written mathematical steps, and scrabble tiles. To demonstrate how those items function as part of the extended mind, let’s consider similar examples that occur in the physical world. A person may use a screwdriver to remove a screw from a piece of wood. It can certainly be argued that the screwdriver becomes a part of the user’s hand, and at the same time, the user’s hand becomes a part of the screwdriver; in other words, the hand and the screwdriver become one. To put it another way, the screwdriver is an extension of the hand. Another example would be to attach a nozzle to a garden hose to produce a concentrated stream of water. It is easy to recognize that the nozzle is simply an extension of the hose. In this same sense, the day planner or the scrabble tiles are extensions of the mind. Just as the nozzle influences the hose’s stream of water, the day planner and the scrabble tiles have an effect on the mind. These items can legitimately be considered extensions of the mind.

Perhaps we can also look at this idea from the point of view of the person: while you may not refer to the screwdriver in your hand as though it were //actually// a part of you, think of what happens when you operate a vehicle. Let's say you're driving your car on the highway. According to the extended mind thesis, we would say that the car becomes an extension of you. But there is a sense in which you (the driver) would agree without much thought; there is a self-attributed linguistic link between the car and yourself. If someone rear ends your car, chances are your mind and thus your verbalization will claim that the car hit "//you"// (or think "that guy hit me" -- linguistically, you even extend //other// minds to objects. Obviously "the guy" didn't hit [extended] "you", it was his car).

The idea that the human mind can extend into objects seems plausible. When you consider that things like rifles in the hands of soldiers, books in the hands of speed-readers, and canes in the hands of blind persons become essentially a part of them, that they become comfortable with incorporating them. From experience, I can say that firing a rifle becomes easier and easier to the point that in a firefight, I can blind fire accurately, and i can point the handgun or rifle at a human and fire knowing that my round will go where I please without aiming down sights to assure accuracy. It is as if the weapon has become an extension of my body, like an arm. Now, if one can make the argument that the mind controls the motion of my arm, and that it is in fact //extended to// my arm, then with the phenomenon of a soldier firing accurately without aiming, wouldn't the mind be extended into the weapon? It seems plausible when compared with the baseball player who can throw without using his free arm to aim any longer. The motion has become natural to the body as the mind, by continued practice and interaction with the scenario, has come to accept the extension as a part of its domain.

Another example of mind extension is writing with a pen. Not only does the pen not work unless it is in someone's hand, but each person has their own distinct penmanship. Professionals can analzye that penmanship and tell the person's state while writing (ie: were they rushed, agitated, forced) and they can also distinguish character traits of the writers. This suggests that some part of you in literally in what you write; that your mind is extended to your pen while writing, thus including your personality while you write. This science of handwriting analysis is regarded as legitimate as well, especially in the legal realm. It is used to authenticate signatures and even suicide notes. It would not be valid if some of the writer was not in what he was writing. If our minds did not extend to objects, such as the pen, everyone would have the same handwriting, because we are all taught the same style of writing; it is when the individual picks up the pen and his mind extends to it that variation in penmanship occurs.

All extension phenomena can be further elaborated on by what we know about the plasticity of the brain. The mind's extending is simply the brain assimilating what is outward into our minds. When the blind man uses his cane as if it was a part of him, this is because his motor neurons developed to accommodate its use, and ultimately the cane becomes tied into his fluid locomotion. The cane becomes represented in the brain, in the same way any thought or feeling could be represented. Therefore the cane is apart of the person's mind. So whenever the person is implementing the use of the cane, he is extending his mind beyond its normal limits. In fact, this idea of extended mind is now being spoken of as a new paradigm in psychology, as a more ecological approach to understanding the system of brain-body-environment we inhabit.

[|Champion Shooter Demonstrates Mental Awareness of Weapon, Possible Mental Extension?] =**David Chalmers Video on Extended Mind, Hong Kong 2009 (1 of 5 videos)**= media type="youtube" key="8S149IVHhmc?fs=1" height="385" width="480"

Arguments against the Extended Mind Thesis
The idea that the human mind can be stretched into other objects, namely Otto’s Notebook, is directly in conflict with introspection. Thoughts are private; they can only be accessed by the person who created them. So, when Otto writes in his notebook, which is an extension of his mind, it loses this quality of privacy. First, Otto’s loss of memory also affects his ability to recognize that the notebook is his personal account; instead he sees the notes as facts. Second, a notebook is not private. It can be manipulated by public thoughts of others. Otto’s notebook is not an act of introspection because he lacks the experience of introspecting.
 * The Argument against the Extended Mind as Introspection**

= **__ Brie Gertler’s Argument Against Clark and Chalmers’ Views on the Extended Mind __** =

In her article “Overextending the Mind,” Brie Gertler argues against the position on the extended mind presented by Andy Clark and David Chalmers in the article, “The Extended Mind.” Specifically, Gertler reconstructs their arguments in seven points. These points are:

1. What makes some information count as a [standing] belief is the role it plays. 2. The information in the notebook [i.e. Otto’s notebook] functions just like [plays the same role as] the information constituting an ordinary non-occurrent belief. 3. The information in Otto’s notebook counts as standing beliefs (from (1) and (2)). 4. Otto’s beliefs are part of his mind. 5. The information in Otto’s notebook is part of Otto’s mind (from (3) and (4)). 6. Otto’s notebook belongs to the world external to Otto’s skin, i.e. the “external” world. 7. The mind extends into the world (from (5) and (6)). [AM 193].

Gertler more or less accepts six of these seven points. She rejects premise number 4 as a flaw in Clark and Chalmers’ argument, thus raising some doubt about their conclusions. Again, premise 4 says that Otto’s beliefs are part of his mind. Gertler, however, denies “that standing beliefs are part of the mind.” [AM 202]. Gertler believes that the mind is “a series of occurrent states.” [AM 203].

To sum up her disagreement with Clark and Chalmers, Gertler puts it this way, “They [Clark and Chalmers] conclude that some external states and processes are mental; I conclude that some internal (standing) beliefs and (non-conscious) cognitive processes are non-mental.” [AM 205]. In other words, Gertler accepts that certain aspects of thinking are external; however, she suggests that some aspects of thinking and believing are not part of thought, and consequently cannot be external.