Critique of Pure Reason

Kant, Immanuel; Guyer, Paul; Wood, Allen W.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804649

Cited by 3,516 publications

(342 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

319

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…) Different positions have been defended with respect to the relation between the phenomenal and the Intentional aspects of consciousness. Certain authors hold that phenomenality requires Intentionality to be classified as consciousness, as in Kant's (1787Kant's ( / 1929 dictum that sensations without concepts are blind. Intentionality without phenomenality, on the other hand, corresponds to abstract thoughts (Natsoulas, 1981).…”

Section: Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Moors

Houwer

2006

Psychological Bulletin

1,214

859

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several theoretical views of automaticity are discussed. Most of these suggest that automaticity should be diagnosed by looking at the presence of features such as unintentional, uncontrolled/uncontrollable, goal independent, autonomous, purely stimulus driven, unconscious, efficient, and fast. Contemporary views further suggest that these features should be investigated separately. The authors examine whether features of automaticity can be disentangled on a conceptual level, because only then is the separate investigation of them worth the effort. They conclude that the conceptual analysis of features is to a large extent feasible. Not all researchers agree with this position, however. The authors show that assumptions of overlap among features are determined by the other researchers' views of automaticity and by the models they endorse for information processing in general. : automatic, unintentional, uncontrolled, autonomous, unconscious Automaticity is a concept with a long-standing history in psychology (e.g., James, 1890;Wundt, 1903). It has been invoked in domains as diverse as perception (MacLeod, 1991), memory (Jacoby, 1991), social cognition (Wegner & Bargh, 1998), learning (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 2002), motivation (Carver & Scheier, 2002), and emotion (Scherer, 1993). Despite its central nature, there is no consensus about what automaticity means. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of the concept and, in particular, the features that have been subsumed under the term. We also discuss implications of this analysis for future research. KeywordsIn the first section, we consider several contrasting views of automaticity. This overview reveals that most scholars analyze automaticity in terms of one or more features. The implication is that automaticity can be diagnosed by looking for the presence of these features in performance or processes. 1 Contemporary approaches to automaticity, moreover, have begun to argue for the separate investigation of automaticity features. In the second section, we discuss the most essential features in greater detail. One purpose is to examine whether they can be separated on a conceptual level. We analyze the features to a point at which the overlap among them is minimized. Another purpose is to show that assumptions of overlap are pervasive in the research literature despite the recent claim that individual features should be investigated separately. These assumptions arise from authors' specific views of automaticity, as well as from the specific underlying information-processing model that they endorse. Approaches to AutomaticityJames (1890), Jastrow (1906), and Wundt (1896/1897, 1903 offered some of the earliest descriptions of automaticity, and many of their ideas have reemerged in contemporary accounts. The views presented below are also based on early studies of skill development (Bryan & Harter, 1899) and early dual-task studies (Solomons & Stein, 1896; see review by Shiffrin, 1988). Automaticity as Processing With No or Minimal AttentionC...

show abstract

Section: Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Moors

Houwer

2006

Psychological Bulletin

1,214

859

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, as it is pointed by Primas [32], from our everyday experience we believe to know that certain aspects (patterns) of a holistic universe of discourse are quite independent of others, notably those distant in time or space. This observation has its best-known origin in the Aristotelian [33] and Kantian view [34], that the outer world is revealed to us both spatially and temporally. In physics, this observation has been embodied in the so-called spatial-temporal separability principle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…An EEG (or more generally electro-magnetic) field 34 has structural and dynamic properties enabling the brain, which produces it, to register and appropriately integrate disparate stimuli (or internal mental images) into a unified and coherent spatial-temporal pattern(s) [23,97,132,225,226].…”

Section: Electroencephalogrammentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural world physical, brain operational, and mind phenomenal space–time

Fingelkurts

Neves

2010

Physics of Life Reviews

168

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts of space and time are widely developed in physics. However, there is a considerable lack of biologically plausible theoretical frameworks that can demonstrate how space and time dimensions are implemented in the activity of the most complex life-system -the brain with a mind. Brain activity is organized both temporally and spatially, thus representing space-time in the brain. Critical analysis of recent research on the space-time organization of the brain's activity pointed to the existence of so-called operational space-time in the brain. This space-time is limited to the execution of brain operations of differing complexity. During each such brain operation a particular short-term spatio-temporal pattern of integrated activity of different brain areas emerges within related operational space-time. At the same time, to have a fully functional human brain one needs to have a subjective mental experience. Current research on the subjective mental experience offers detailed analysis of space-time organization of the mind. According to this research, subjective mental experience (subjective virtual world) has definitive spatial and temporal properties similar to many physical phenomena. Based on systematic review of the propositions and tenets of brain and mind space-time descriptions, our aim in this review essay is to explore the relations between the two. To be precise, we would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.Key words: spatial, temporal, consciousness, cognition, operation, architectonics, EEG, field, metastability, physics, coordinative dynamics, self-organization, cortex.

show abstract

“…It has long been accepted that our experience of color and other perceptual characteristics of the world has as much to do with the organization of our mind as it does with the world itself (Kant, 1781(Kant, / 1965. Perception is thus acknowledged to be a constructive process.…”

Section: Social Perception and Self-perception Are Constructive Procementioning

confidence: 99%

Principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition: An introduction for the special issue on social cognitive neuroscience

Lieberman

2005

NeuroImage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces the special issue of NeuroImage focused on social cognitive neuroscience. Social psychology has a rich history of making sense of the often paradoxical aspects of social cognition and the social world. This article reviews the principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition and behavior that have been examined by social psychologists for decades. Five principles of social cognition and behavior are reviewed including: (1) the power of the situation over behavior, (2) blindness for situational influences, (3) social perception and self-perception are constructive processes, (4) blindness for the constructed nature of social and self-perception, and (5) self-processes are social. Four processes of social cognition are reviewed including: (1) cognitive architecture; (2) automaticity and control; (3) motivated reasoning; and (4) accessibility, frames, and expectations. Finally, five areas of social cognition that contain enduring puzzles are described including (1) the self, (2) attitudes, (3) reflective social cognition, (4) automatic social cognition, and (5) social motives. In several of the areas of study reviewed, cognitive neuroscience is well positioned to make important contributions to these research traditions either by allowing for new tests of hypotheses or by allowing for unobtrusive measurement of social cognitive processes. D

show abstract

Critique of Pure Reason

Cited by 3,516 publications

References 0 publications

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Natural world physical, brain operational, and mind phenomenal space–time

Principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition: An introduction for the special issue on social cognitive neuroscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About