Skip to main content Accessibility help

Minding One's Cognitive Systems: When Does a Group of Minds Constitute a Single Cognitive Unit?

  • Robert Rupert

The possibility of group minds or group mental states has been considered by a number of authors addressing issues in social epistemology and related areas (Goldman 2004, Pettit 2003, Gilbert 2004, Hutchins 1995). An appeal to group minds might, in the end, do indispensable explanatory work in the social or cognitive sciences. I am skeptical, though, and this essay lays out some of the reasons for my skepticism. The concerns raised herein constitute challenges to the advocates of group minds (or group mental states), challenges that might be overcome as theoretical and empirical work proceeds. Nevertheless, these hurdles are, I think, genuine and substantive, so much so that my tentative conclusion will not be optimistic. If a group mind is supposed to be a single mental system having two or more minds as proper parts, the prospects for group minds seem dim–or so I will argue.

Hide All
Adams, F. & Aizawa, K. (2001). “The Bounds of Cognition.” Philosophical Psychology 14: 4364.
Block, Ned (1986). “Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology.” In French, P.Uehling, T., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 10: Studies in the Philosophy of Mind (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 615–78.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2002). “Consciousness and Its Place in Nature.” In Chalmers, D. (ed.), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 247–72.
Cummins, R. (1996). Representations, Targets, and Attitudes. London: MIT Press.
Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining Behavior: Reasons in a World of Causes. London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1990). A Theory of Content and Other Essays. London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1994). The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and Its Semantics. London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (2000). The Mind Doesn't Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology. London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. & LePore, E. (1992). Holism: A Shopper's Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gilbert, M. (2004). “Collective Epistemology.” EPISTEME 1: 0-17 (pagination refers to typescript).
Goldman, A. (2004). “Group Knowledge Versus Group Rationality: Two Approaches to Social Epistemology,” EPISTEME 1: 1122.
Grush, R. (1997) “The Architecture of Representation.” Philosophical Psychology 10: 523.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. London: MIT Press.
Maloney, J. C. (1994). “Content: Covariation, Control, and Contingency.” Synthese 100: 241–90.
Millikan, R. (1984) Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. London: MIT Press.
Pettit, P. (2003) “Groups with Minds of Their Own,” in Schmitt, F. (ed.), Socializing Metaphysics, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Prinz, J. (2002). Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis. London: MIT Press.
Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rupert, R. (1998). “On the Relationship between Naturalistic Semantics and Individuation Criteria for Terms in a Language of Thought.” Synthese 117: 95131.
Rupert, R. (1999). “The Best Test Theory of Extension: First Principle(s).” Mind and Language 14 (1999): 321355.
Rupert, R. (2001). “Coining Terms in the Language of Thought: Innateness, Emergence, and the Lot of Cummins's Argument against the Causal Theory of Mental Content.” The Journal nof Philosophy 98: 499530.
Schlosser, G. (1998) “Self-reproduction and Functionality: A Systems-Theoretical Approach to Teleological Explanation.” Synthese 116: 303354.
Segal, G. (2002) A Slim Book about Narrow Content. London: MIT Press.
Slater, C. (1994). “Discrimination without Indication: Why Dretske Can't Lean on Learning.” Mind and Language 9: 163–80.
Velleman, J. D. (1997) “How to Share an Intention,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 2950.
Wilson, R. (2004) Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed