Hume và phương pháp tiếp cận thực hành đối với tâm trí

Ashby, W. R. (1947). The nervous system as physical machine: With special reference to the origin of adaptive behavior. Mind, 56(221), 44–59. Ayer, A. J. (1980). Hume. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 91–99. Beer, R. D. (2003). The dynamics of active categorical perception in an evolved model agent. Adaptive Behavior, 11(4), 209–243. Biro, J. (1993). Hume’s new science of the mind. In D. F. Norton (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hume (pp. 33–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bitbol, M. (2002). Science as if situation mattered. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 181–224. Boden, M. A. (2008). Autonomy: What is it? BioSystems, 91(2), 305–308. Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 139–160. Buckle, S. (2001). Hume’s enlightenment tract: The unity and purpose of ‘an enquiry concerning human understanding. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chrisley, R., & Ziemke, T. (2002). Embodiment. In L. Nadel, et al. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of cognitive science (pp. 1102–1108). London, UK: Macmillan. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Clark, A., & Toribio, J. (1994). Doing without representing? Synthese, 101(3), 401–431. Cliff, D. (1991). Computational neuroethology: A provisional manifesto. In J.-A. Meyer, & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 29–39). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Collier, M. (1999). Filling the gaps: Hume and connectionism on the continued existence of unperceived objects. Hume Studies, 25(1–2), 155–170. Collier, M. (2005). Hume and cognitive science: The current status of the controversy over abstract ideas. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 197–207. Colombetti, G. (2008). Enaction, sense-making and emotion. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT, in press. Copley, S., & Edgar, A. (1998). Introduction. In S. Copley, & A. Edgar (Eds.), David Hume: Selected essays (pp. vii–xxii). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam. Davie, G. (1977). Edmund Husserl and ‘the as yet, in its most important respect, unrecognized greatness of Hume. In G. P. Morice (Ed.), David Hume: Bicentenary papers (pp. 69–76). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507. Deleuze, G. (1953). Empirisme et subjectivité: Essai sure la Nature Humaine selon Hume, trans. by: C. V. Boundas, Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, (1991). Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books. Dennett, D. C. (1984). Cognitive wheels: The frame problem of AI. In C. Hookway (Ed.), Minds, machines, and evolution: Philosophical studies (pp. 129–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Depraz, N., Varela, F. J., & Vermersch, P. (2003). On becoming aware: A pragmatics of experiencing. The Netherlands, Amsterdam: Benjamins. Di Paolo, E. A. (2003). Organismically-inspired robotics: homeostatic adaptation and teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop. In K. Murase, & T. Asakura (Eds.), Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality (pp. 19–42). Adelaide, Australia: Advanced Knowledge International. Di Paolo, E. A. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–452. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2008). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT, in press. Dreyfus, H. L. (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philosophical Psychology, 20(2), 247–268. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Making a mind versus modelling the brain: artificial intelligence back at a branch-point. Daedalus, 117(1), 15–44. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fodor, J. A. (2003). Hume variations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Garrett, D. (1981). Hume’s self-doubts about personal identity. The Philosophical Review, 90(3), 337–358. Garrett, D. (1997). Cognition and commitment in Hume’s philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Harnish, R. M. (2002). Minds, brains, computers: An historical introduction to the foundations of cognitive science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Harvey, I. (2008). Misrepresentations. In S. Bullock, J. Noble, R. Watson, & M. Bedau (Eds.), Artificial life XI: Proc. of the 11th Int. Conf. on the simulation and synthesis of living systems (pp. 227–233). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Hume, D. (1739–1740a). In D. F. Norton, & M. J. Norton (Eds.), A treatise of human nature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hume, D. (1739–1740b). An abstract of … A treatise of human nature. In D. F. Norton, & M. J. Norton (Eds.), David Hume: A treatise of human nature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hume, D. (1741). Of the delicacy of taste and passion. In S. Copley, & A. Edgar (Eds.), David Hume: Selected essays (pp. 10–13). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998. Hume, D. (1748). In T. L. Beauchamp (Ed.), An enquiry concerning human understanding. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. Hume, D. (1757). Of the standard of taste. In S. Copley, & A. Edgar (Eds.), David Hume: Selected essays (pp. 133–154). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998. Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues concerning natural religion. In J. C. A. Gaskin (Ed.), David Hume: Principal writings on religion including dialogues concerning natural religion and the natural history of religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998. Husserl, E. (1929). Formale und transzendentale Logik. Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft. In P. Janssen (Ed.), Husserliana XVII. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974. Izquierdo, E., & Harvey, I. (2007). The dynamics of associative learning in an evolved situated agent. In F. Almeida e Costa, et al. (Ed.), ECAL 2007: Proc. of the 9th Euro. Conf. on Artificial Life (pp. 365–374). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Izquierdo-Torres, E., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2005). Is an embodied system ever purely reactive? In M. Capcarrere, et al. (Ed.), ECAL 2005: Proc. of the 8th Euro. Conf. on Artificial Life (pp. 252–261). Germany, Berlin: Springer. Jonas, H. (1966). The phenomenon of life: Toward a philosophical biology. Evanston,Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2001. Kemp Smith, N. (1905). The naturalism of Hume (I.). Mind, 14(54), 149–173. Kemp Smith, N. (1935). Introduction. In N. K. Smith (Ed.), Hume’s dialogues concerning natural religion (pp. 1–153). London, UK: Oxford University Press. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer, & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 4 (pp. 463–502). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & the PDP Research Group (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT. McGann, M. (2007). Enactive theorists do it on purpose: Toward an enactive account of goals and goal-directedness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 463–483. Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. London, UK: Routledge. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 19(3), 113–126. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939–1031. Pylyshyn, Z. (1984). Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Rosenberg, A. (1993). Hume and the philosophy of science. In D. F. Norton (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Hume (pp. 64–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Roy, J.-M., Petitot, J., Pachoud, B., & Varela, F. J. (1999). Beyond the gap: An introduction to naturalizing phenomenology. In J. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 1–80). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schliesser, E. (2007). Hume’s Newtonianism and Anti-Newtonianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Summer 2007 Edition, URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2007/entries/hume-newton/. Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl, & M. Scriven (Eds.), The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis (pp. 253–329). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Smith, B. C. (2007). The objectivity of tastes and tasting. In B. C. Smith (Ed.), Questions of taste: The philosophy of wine (pp. 41–77). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Smolensky, P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(1), 1–23. Stewart, J., Di Paolo, E. A., & Gapenne, O. (2008). Introduction. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT, in press. Stroud, B. (1977). Hume. New York, NY: Routledge. Thompson, E. (2004). Life and mind: From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology. A tribute to Francisco Varela. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 381–398. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Torrance, S. (2005). In search of the enactive: Introduction to special issue on enactive experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 357–368. Van Gelder, T. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(5), 615–665. Van Gelder, T., & Port, R. F. (1995). It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In R. F. Port, & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Varela, F. J. (1992). Un Know-How per l’Etica, trans. as: Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999. Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349. Varela, F. J. (1997). Patterns of life: Intertwining identity and cognition. Brain and Cognition, 34(1), 72–87. Varela, F. J. (1999). The specious present: A neurophenomenology of time consciousness. In J. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 266–314). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Varela, F. J., & Depraz, N. (2005). At the source of time: Valence and the constitutional dynamics of affect. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(8–10), 61–81. Varela, F. J., & Shear, J. (1999). First-person methodologies: What, Why, How? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2–3), 1–14. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Waxman, W. (1994). Hume’s theory of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Weber, A., & Varela, F. J. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 97–125. Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Zahavi, D. (1996). Husserl und die transzendentale Intersubjektivität: Eine Antwort auf die sprachpragmatische Kritik, trans. by: E. A. Behnke, Husserl and Transcendental Intersubjectivity: A response to the linguistic-pragmatic critique. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2001.