Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-pffzl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-05T14:17:29.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What’s “Complex” about complex cognition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2025

Charles Aaron Beasley Open the ORCID record for Charles Aaron Beasley [Opens in a new window]
Charles Aaron Beasley*
Affiliation:
Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, Rome RM, Italy beasley.charles@gmail.com https://www.charlesbeasley.com/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While prematurely committing to a conception of “complex cognition” promises to stifle inquiry, tentatively specifying and empirically determining the relevant senses of “complex” could very well serve to drive the research program forward. This strategy has proven particularly useful in debates around simplicity. However, given that “complex” is a multi-dimensional adjective, all-things-considered comparative evaluations of it might not be possible.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e82
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, C. (2017). On (not) defining cognition. Synthese, 194(11), 4233–4249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. B., Halina, M., & Klein, C. (2023). Transitions in cognitive evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 290(2002), 20230671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonner, John Tyler. (1988). The evolution of complexity by means of natural selection, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, S., & Trestman, M. (2024). A multi-trait embodied framework for the evolution of brains and cognition across animal phyla. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24000335 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dacey, M. (2016). The varieties of parsimony in psychology. Mind & Language, 31(4), 414–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott-Graves, Alkistis. (2018). Generality and causal interdependence in ecology. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 1102–1114. https://doi.org/10.1086/699698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedden, B., & Nebel, J. M. (2024). Multidimensional concepts and disparate scale types. Philosophical Review, 133(3), 265–308.Google Scholar
Hinegardner, Ralph. & Engelberg, Joseph. (1983) Biological complexity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 104(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(83)90398-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khmelnitskaya, Anna B. (2010). Existence of a dictatorial subgroup in social choice with independent subgroup utility scales, an alternative proof.” In Van Deemen, Adrian, & Rusinowska, Agnieszka (Eds.), Collective decision making: Views from social choice and game theory. Vol. 43 of Theory and Decision Library C. (pp. 111–23). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1997). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Vol. 962). Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
McShea, Daniel W. (2001). The hierarchical structure of organisms: A scale and documentation of a trend in the maximum. Paleobiology, 27(2), 405–423.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassoon, G. W. (2013). A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of semantics, 30(3), 335–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar