No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This article is a summary of the conclusions of a work in progress on “Biology and Cognition;” from this stems the rather general character of the following observations. In order to compare cognitive and biological mechanisms, we must first state that the former are an extension and utilization of organic auto-regulations, of which they are a form of end-product. To demonstrate this, one can begin by noting the close parallels between the major problems faced by biologists and those faced by theoreticians of the intelligence or of cognition. Secondly, one can analyze the functional analogies and especially the structural isomorphisms between organic life and the means of cognition: “nested” structures, structures of order, multiplicative correspondence, etc. One can also attempt a sort of comparative epistemology of the different levels of behavior (the “logic” of the instincts or of the learning processes, etc.). Finally, one can examine the explanations current among biologists to account for the formation of intelligence. But if these various analyses bring into relief the continuity between organic life and cognitive mechanisms, on the other hand it still remains to be seen that the latter constitute differentiated and specialized organs for reacting physiologically to the external world. Or in other words, that at the same time that they are an elaboration of organic structures in general, they fulfill particular functions, although still of a biological nature. The following pages are based on this premise, but it should be understood that it is not a question of contrasting cognition with organic behavior but rather of placing the functions of the former within the framework of the latter.
1 According to Cannon, homeostasis means the regulatory mechanism which maintains equilibrium as a physiological system, plus, as we have since discovered, the organic function which ensures hereditary transmission (genetic homeostasis).
2 By phenotypes we mean the form which individual organisms take with relation to the milieu, as opposed to the "genotype" or hereditary form.
3 See the interesting experiments of I. Meyerson and P. Guillaume.
4 Grassé calls "stigmergies" certain hereditary behavioral regulations of termites. They form small pellets of matter in building their homes, and when these reach a specific volume, the pellets then become used as supports, floors, etc., in accord ance with a new set of laws, but without a particular order of succession.
5 The epigenotype is a structure (using the definition suggested by the work of Waddington) which includes both genotypic and epigenotypic structures, that is, related to an embryonic development interacting with the environment.
You have
Access