REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?”
Abstract Sign-based semantics and embodied semantics are argued to be mutually beneficial to one another. However, while the body does shape our cognitive activities to a great extent, this does not entail that cognition can be reduced to sensorimotor simulation, i.e that the mind can be reduced to...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Manuscrito |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452022000100145&lng=en&tlng=en |
| _version_ | 1818774202697646080 |
|---|---|
| author | PATRICK DUFFLEY |
| author_facet | PATRICK DUFFLEY |
| author_sort | PATRICK DUFFLEY |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Sign-based semantics and embodied semantics are argued to be mutually beneficial to one another. However, while the body does shape our cognitive activities to a great extent, this does not entail that cognition can be reduced to sensorimotor simulation, i.e that the mind can be reduced to the body. Language itself bears testimony to this, as the mind is construed in ordinary discourse as having the incredible capacity of being free to travel beyond the limits of present time and current spatial location. Nagel has argued famously that mind is a fundamental datum of nature that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for, as consciousness has an essentially subjective character to it, a ‘what it is like for the conscious organism itself’ aspect, that cannot be reduced to the matter of which the organism is constituted. Two modern scientific developments refute the contention that the human mind can be explained as a purely material machine: quantum theory in physics and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. Just because the mind works through the body does not entail that the mind can be reduced to the body. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T10:37:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d0e889e99f184e019aadd21f63f03120 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2317-630X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T10:37:24Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Manuscrito |
| spelling | doaj.art-d0e889e99f184e019aadd21f63f031202022-12-21T21:10:43ZengUniversidade Estadual de CampinasManuscrito2317-630X2022-03-0145114515410.1590/0100-6045.2022.v45n1.pdREPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?”PATRICK DUFFLEYhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5566-9076Abstract Sign-based semantics and embodied semantics are argued to be mutually beneficial to one another. However, while the body does shape our cognitive activities to a great extent, this does not entail that cognition can be reduced to sensorimotor simulation, i.e that the mind can be reduced to the body. Language itself bears testimony to this, as the mind is construed in ordinary discourse as having the incredible capacity of being free to travel beyond the limits of present time and current spatial location. Nagel has argued famously that mind is a fundamental datum of nature that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for, as consciousness has an essentially subjective character to it, a ‘what it is like for the conscious organism itself’ aspect, that cannot be reduced to the matter of which the organism is constituted. Two modern scientific developments refute the contention that the human mind can be explained as a purely material machine: quantum theory in physics and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. Just because the mind works through the body does not entail that the mind can be reduced to the body.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452022000100145&lng=en&tlng=enSign-Based SemanticsEmbodimentCognitive LinguisticsSemiological Function of LanguageAbstraction |
| spellingShingle | PATRICK DUFFLEY REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?” Manuscrito Sign-Based Semantics Embodiment Cognitive Linguistics Semiological Function of Language Abstraction |
| title | REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?” |
| title_full | REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?” |
| title_fullStr | REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?” |
| title_full_unstemmed | REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?” |
| title_short | REPLY TO “COULD SIGN-BASED SEMANTICS AND EMBODIED SEMANTICS BENEFIT ONE ANOTHER?” |
| title_sort | reply to could sign based semantics and embodied semantics benefit one another |
| topic | Sign-Based Semantics Embodiment Cognitive Linguistics Semiological Function of Language Abstraction |
| url | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452022000100145&lng=en&tlng=en |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT patrickduffley replytocouldsignbasedsemanticsandembodiedsemanticsbenefitoneanother |