Generally speaking, whenever we think of something as being “technical”, we’re talking about the involvement of physical cognition. Art is social, yes, but it is also highly technical.
(in the sense in which I understand “physical cognition”—the body is intimately involved
That is not what I meant—as the excerpt you quoted was intended to communicate.
Musical composition is one of the archetypal instances of a physical-cognition-loaded activity (in the sense that I mean), and yet there your physical tools are a pencil/pen and paper (or, sometimes, indeed, a mouse).
These programs seem to have been disfavored by history’s great scientific innovators, who tend to make statements like “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble...” or “What do you care what other people think”, which sound like endorsements of physical over social cognition.
For some reason, it’s not overly surprising to me that both Isaac Newton and Richard Feynman would directly endorse physical cognition—what with them being natural philosophers/physicists. It’s less clear however that such “physical cognition” is directly relevant to e.g. music composition, except inasmuch as both physics and music composition are linked to self-actualization—as opposed to ‘mere’ love, belonging and self-esteem, which (if pursued in excess, due to a lack of “self-actualizing” pursuits) might “lead[] to increased unethical behavior” or “produce anti-social narcissism” according to the essay you link to.
That is not what I meant—as the excerpt you quoted was intended to communicate.
Musical composition is one of the archetypal instances of a physical-cognition-loaded activity (in the sense that I mean), and yet there your physical tools are a pencil/pen and paper (or, sometimes, indeed, a mouse).
So what do you mean, then? I don’t understand what “physical cognition” in this context points to. What is the word “physical” doing in there?
It failed.
See here. (This was linked in the original comment...)
Sorry, still don’t understand it. gjm has a fairly detailed list of complaints and I concur with them.
Do you think you use the term physical cognition in the way it’s used in the literature? Or do you think you use it in a different way?
“The literature” that is relevant here consists of Michael Vassar’s 2013 Edge essay.
It’s relevant in the way that it doesn’t use the term “physical cognition”?
From the fourth paragraph:
For some reason, it’s not overly surprising to me that both Isaac Newton and Richard Feynman would directly endorse physical cognition—what with them being natural philosophers/physicists. It’s less clear however that such “physical cognition” is directly relevant to e.g. music composition, except inasmuch as both physics and music composition are linked to self-actualization—as opposed to ‘mere’ love, belonging and self-esteem, which (if pursued in excess, due to a lack of “self-actualizing” pursuits) might “lead[] to increased unethical behavior” or “produce anti-social narcissism” according to the essay you link to.