Recent trends in psychology have revealed increasing discontent toward representational explanations of behavior. However, whether these trends have the conceptual resources to address the full range of cognitive phenomena remains unclear. Here, I defend neorealism (Holt, 1914) as the missing philosophical link between radically embodied cognitive science and a more encompassing psychology. Neorealism identifies cognitive contents, however subjective or unreal in appearance, with portions or cross sections of the objective environment. These portions are extended in time and they sustain causal and historical relations to current behavior. I sketch how neorealist concepts can help psychologists to address phenomena such as dreams and imagery in fully environmental terms.
BentallR. P. (1990). The illusion of reality: A review and integration of psychological research on hallucinations. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 82–95. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.82
2.
BoydR. (1981). Scientific realism and naturalistic epistemology. In AsquithP. D. & GiereR. N. (), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 2, pp. 613–662). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
3.
BrunswikE. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 1, 1–102.
4.
ChemeroA. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
ChemeroA., & SilbersteinM. (2008). After the philosophy of mind: Replacing scholasticism with science. Philosophy of Science, 75, 1–27. doi:10.1086/587820
6.
FodorJ. A., & PylyshynZ. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5
7.
FranklinA., AndersonM., BrockD., ColemanS., DowningJ., GruvanderA., … ToeringD. (1989). Can a theory-laden observation test the theory?British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 40, 229–231. doi:10.1093/bjps/40.2.229
8.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
GoertzenJ. R. (2008). On the possibility of unification: The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 829–852. doi:10.1177/0959354308097260
10.
GoldfieldE. C. (1983). The ecological approach to perceiving as a foundation for understanding the development of knowing in infancy. Developmental Review, 3, 371–404. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(83)90021-7
11.
GrushR. (2002). Cognitive science. In MachamerP. & SilbersteinM. (), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of science (pp. 272–289). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
12.
HaijiangQ., SaundersJ. A., StoneR. W., & BackusB. T. (2006). Demonstration of cue recruitment: Change in visual appearance by means of Pavlovian conditioning. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 483–488. doi:10.1073/pnas.0506728103
13.
HoltE. B. (1914). The concept of consciousness. New York, NY: Macmillan.
14.
HoltE. B. (1915). Response and cognition. I. The specific-response relation. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology & Scientific Methods, 12, 365–373. doi:10.2307/2013669
15.
HoltE. B., MarvinW. T., MontagueW. P., PerryR. B., PitkinW. B., & SpauldingE. G. (1910). The program and first platform of six realists. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology & Scientific Methods, 7, 393–401. doi:10.2307/2010710
16.
HoltE. B., MarvinW. T., MontagueW. P., PerryR. B., PitkinW. B., & SpauldingE. G. (1912). The new realism: Cooperative studies in philosophy. New York, NY: Macmillan.
17.
HummelJ. E. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in shape perception and object recognition. In DietrichE. & MarkmanA. (), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 157–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
JamesW. (1904). Does “consciousness” exist?Journal of Philosophy, Psychology & Scientific Methods, 1, 477–491. doi:10.2307/2011942
19.
KantorJ. R. (1921). A tentative analysis of the primary data of psychology. Journal of Philosophy, 18, 253–269. doi:10.2307/2939401
20.
KochS. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science”. American Psychologist, 36, 257–269. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.3.257
21.
KochS. (1993). “Psychology” or “the psychological studies”?American Psychologist, 48, 902–904. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.8.902
22.
ManzottiR. (2006). Consciousness and existence as a process. Mind & Matter, 4, 7–43.
23.
MinskyM. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In WinstonP. H. (), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
24.
MontagueW. P. (1912). A realistic theory of truth and error. In HoltE. B., MarvinW. T., MontagueW. P., PerryR. B., PitkinW. B., & SpauldingE. G. (), The new realism: Coöperative studies in philosophy (pp. 251–300). New York, NY: Macmillan.
25.
NielsenK. S. (2010). Representation and dynamics. Philosophical Psychology, 23, 759–773. doi:10.1080/09515089.2010.529045
26.
NunnT. P. (1909–1910). Are secondary qualities independent of perception?Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 10, 191–218.
27.
RachlinH. (2012). Is the mind in the brain? A review of: Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness by Alva Noë (2009). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98, 131–137. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-131
28.
RandellJ., GoyalM., SaundersJ., & ReedP. (2011). Effect of a context of concrete and abstract words on hallucinatory content in individuals scoring high in schizotypy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42, 149–153. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.11.002
29.
SankeyH. (1997). Incommensurability: The current state of play. Theoria, 12, 425–445.
30.
SmithT. L. (1988). Neo-Skinnerian psychology: A non-radical behaviorism. In FineA. & LeplinJ. (), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1, pp. 143–148). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
31.
TonneauF. (2004). Consciousness outside the head. Behavior and Philosophy, 32, 97–123.
32.
TonneauF. (2011a). Holt's realism: New reasons for behavior analysis. In CharlesE. P. (), A new look at New Realism: The psychology and philosophy of E. B. Holt (pp. 33–55). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
33.
TonneauF. (2011b). Belief modification in cognitive therapy. Clínica y Salud, 22, 257–266. doi:10.5093/cl2011v22n3a6
34.
TreismanA. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 353, 1295–1306. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0284
35.
TurveyM. T., & CarelloC. (1981). Cognition: The view from ecological realism. Cognition, 10, 313–321. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90063-9
36.
TurveyM. T., ShawR. E., ReedE. S., & MaceW. M. (1981). Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981). Cognition, 9, 237–304. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90002-0
37.
TurveyM. T., SolomonH. Y., & BurtonG. (1989). An ecological analysis of knowing by wielding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 387–407. doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.52-387
38.
WangC. (1993). Sense and nonsense of statistical inference: Controversy, misuse, and subtlety. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
39.
WatsonJ. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177. doi:10.1037/h0074428
40.
WhiteK. G. (1985). Characteristics of forgetting functions in delayed matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 15–34. doi:10.1901/jeab.1985.44-15
41.
YancharS. C., & SlifeB. D. (1997). Pursuing unity in a fragmented psychology: Problems and prospects. Review of General Psychology, 1, 235–255. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.235
