Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T22:49:04.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Core knowledge, visual illusions, and the discovery of the self

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

Marlene D. Berke Open the ORCID record for Marlene D. Berke [Opens in a new window]  and
Julian Jara-Ettinger
Marlene D. Berke*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA marlene.berke@yale.edu; julian.jara-ettinger@yale.edu marleneberke.github.io; compdevlab.yale.edu
Julian Jara-Ettinger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA marlene.berke@yale.edu; julian.jara-ettinger@yale.edu marleneberke.github.io; compdevlab.yale.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why have core knowledge? Standard answers typically emphasize the difficulty of learning core knowledge from experience, or the benefits it confers for learning about the world. Here, we suggest a complementary reason: Core knowledge is critical for learning not just about the external world, but about the mind itself.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e122
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelson, E. H. (June 2001). On seeing stuff: The perception of materials by humans and machines. In Rogowitz, B. E., & Pappas, T. N. (Eds.), Human vision and electronic imaging VI (Vol. 4299, pp. 1–12). SPIE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berke, M. D., Azerbayev, Z., Belledonne, M., Tavares, Z., & Jara-Ettinger, J. (2023). MetaCOG: Learning a metacognition to recover what objects are actually there. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03105.Google Scholar
Berke, M. D., Walter-Terrill, R., Jara-Ettinger, J., & Scholl, B. J. (2022). Flexible goals require that inflexible perceptual systems produce veridical representations: Implications for realism as revealed by evolutionary simulations. Cognitive Science, 46(10), e13195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, P. (2008). Meta-cognition in animals: A skeptical look. Mind & Language, 23(1), 58–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2011). Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(8), 365–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, M. A. (2022). Towards characterizing the canonical computations generating phenomenal experience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 142, 104903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proust, J. (2013). The philosophy of metacognition: Mental agency and self-awareness. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollwage, M., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Metacognitive failure as a feature of those holding radical beliefs. Current Biology, 28(24), 4014–4021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S. (2022). What babies know: Core knowledge and composition. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varini, F. (2009). Cercle et suite d’éclats. [Metallic paint on buildings]. Vercorin, Switzerland.Google Scholar