Alienated Modes of Intelligence and Their Critique: from Computocentrism and Neurocentrism to Inner Sociality
https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2025-11-5-19-33
Abstract
Introduction. Intelligence is a fuzzy concept with many connotations. To construct a theory of intelligence, a philosophical analysis of its general essence is required, involving a critique of its distorted interpretations. Methodology and sources. The study emphasizes the genealogical method, critical analysis, and systemic dialectical method. The first uncovers the «background» and the trajectory of each concept’s formation. The second exposes their conceptual irrelevance. The third highlights the valuable aspects of the concepts of and ultimately offers a holistic understanding of intelligence. Results and discussion. The two main alienated modes of intelligence are computocentrism and naturalism, each of which may appear in both narrow and broad versions. In the narrow version, computocentrism is logocentrism. In its broader forms, computocentrism continues to interpret intelligence as a computational phenomenon, but through the prism of symbolic representation and language. The narrow version of naturalism is neurocentrism, which understands of intelligence as a phenomenon of the brain. In a broader sense, it expands intelligence into the corporeal dimension and, subsequently, into the socio-cultural one through naturalization. These modes may take hybrid forms, as illustrated by the example of artificial neural networks. Conclusion. The insufficiency of both approaches and their simplifications of intelligence are demonstrated. In contrast, it is proposed to consider intelligence through the lens of a non-reductionist understanding of sociality. Within this framework, logic, information, the brain, and the body are necessary but insufficient foundations of intelligence. Intelligence is shown to function in joint communicative and, more importantly, projective and creative human activity. The individual and the collective therefore reside in it in an inseparable unity.
About the Author
A. I. Zhelnin
Perm State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anton I. Zhelnin – Can. Sci. (Philosophy, 2017), Associate Professor at the Department of Philosophy
References
1. Malabou, C. (2019), Morphing intelligence: from IQ measurement to artificial brains, Columbia Univ. Press, NY, USA.
2. Horkhaimer, M. (2011), Eclipse of Reason, Transl. by Yudin, A., Kanon+, Moscow, RUS.
3. Pfeifer, R. and Scheier, C. (1999), Understanding intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.
4. Girenok, F.I. (2023), “Why consciousness is not an intelligence?”, Lomonosov Philosophy J., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 19–32. DOI: 10.55959/MSU0201-7385-7-2023-2-19-32.
5. Dreifus, H. (2010), What Computers can’t do: a critique of artificial reason, Transl. by Rodman, N., LIBROKOM, Moscow, RUS.
6. Russel, S. and Norvig, P. (2007), Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach, Trans. by Ptitsyn, K., Vil'yams, Moscow, RUS.
7. Dreyfus, H. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1986), Mind over Machine, The Free Press, NY, USA.
8. Von Neumann, J. (2012), The Computer and the Brain, Yale Univ. Press, Yale, USA.
9. Churchland, P.S. and Sejnowski, T.J. (2017), The Computational Brain, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.
10. Chalmers, D. (2019), The Conscious Mind: In Search a Fundamental Theory, Transl. by Vasil'ev, V., URSS, Moscow, RUS.
11. Putnem, H. (1999), Philosophical Papers, Transl. by Makeeva, L. et al., Dom intellektual'noi knigi, Moscow, RUS.
12. Pfeifer, R. and Bongard, J. (2006), How the body shapes the way we think: a new view of intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.
13. Vnutskikh, A. and Komarov, S. (2024), “Lebenswelt, Digital Phenomenology, and the Modification of Human Intelligence”, Technology and Language, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 67–79. DOI: 10.48417/technolang.2024.02.06.
14. Piaget, J. (2004), La psychologie de l’intelligence, Transl. by Pyatigorskiy, A. et al., Piter, SPb., RUS.
15. Finn, V.K. (2021), Artificial Intelligence: methodology, applications, philosophy, LENAND, Moscow, RUS.
16. Viner, N. (2019), Cybernetics and Society, Transl. by Zhelninov, V., AST, Moscow, RUS.
17. Chomsky, N. and Berwick, R. (2021), Why only us: Language and Evolution, Transl. by Chernikov, S., Piter, SPb., RUS.
18. Wittgenstein, L. (2020), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Transl. by Dobrosel'skiy, L., AST, Moscow, RUS.
19. Popper, K. (2002), Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach, Transl. by Lakhuti, D., URSS, Moscow, RUS.
20. Baryshnikov, P.N. (2024), “”Language barrier” in theories of consciousness and limits of computational approach”, Philosophy J., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 122–136. DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2024-17-2-122-136.
21. Dennett, D. (2004), Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness, Transl. by Veretennikov, A., Ideya-Press, Moscow, RUS.
22. Searle, J. (2002), A Re-Discovery of the Mind, Transl. by Gryaznov, A., Ideya-Press, Moscow, RUS.
23. Abraham, T.H. (2002), “(Physio)logical circuits: The intellectual origins of the McCulloch–Pitts neural networks”, J. of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, vol. 38, iss. 1, pp. 3–25. DOI: 10.1002/jhbs.1094.
24. Lytton, W.W. (2007), From computer to brain: Foundations of computational neuroscience, Springer, NY, USA.
25. Vassallo, M. et al. (2024), “Problems of Connectionism”, Philosophies, vol. 9, no. 2: 41. DOI: 10.3390/philosophies9020041.
26. Kriegeskorte, N. (2015), “Deep neural networks: a new framework for modeling bio-logical vision and brain information processing”, Annual review of vision science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 417–446. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-vision-082114-035447.
27. LeDoux, J. (2003), Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are, Penguin Books, London, UK.
28. Falikman, M.V. and Koul, M. (2014), “’Cultural revolution” in cognitive science: from neural plasticity to genetic mechanism of cultural expierence’s acquiring”, Cultural-Hiscorical Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 4–18.
29. Damasio, A. (1995), Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, Avon Books, NY, USA.
30. Damasio, A. (2018), Self comes to Mind. Constructing the Conscious Brain, Transl. by Yushchenko, I., Kar'era-Press, Moscow, RUS.
31. Wilson, E.O. (2015), On Human Nature, Transl. by Novikova, T., Kuchkovo pole, Moscow, RUS.
32. Bazhanov, V.A. (2019), Mozg – kul'tura – sotsium: Kantianskaya programma v kognitivnykh issledovaniyakh [Brain – culture – society: Kantianian programm in cognitive research], Kanon+, Moscow, RUS.
33. Heylighen, F. (2007), “The Global Superorganism: an evolutionary-cybernetic model of the emerging network society”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 57–117.
34. Heylighen, F. (2011), “Conceptions of a Global Brain: an historical review”, Evolution: Cosmic, biological, and social, eds. by Grinin, L.F. et al., ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House, Volgograd, RUS, pp. 274–289.
35. Gershkovich, V.A. and Falikman, M.V. (2018), “Cognitive Psychology in a Search of Self”, The Russian J. of Cognitive Science, vol. 5, iss. 4, pp. 28–46.
36. Zinov'ev, A.A. (2024), Logicheskii intellekt [Logical Intelligence], Kanon+, Moscow, RUS.
37. Benjamin, F.J. et al. (2023), “All intelligence is collective intelligence”, J. of Multiscale Neuroscience, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 169–191. DOI: 10.56280/1564736810.
38. Virno, P. (2013), A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life, Transl. by. Petrova, A., Ad Marginem, Moscow, RUS.
Review
For citations:
Zhelnin A.I. Alienated Modes of Intelligence and Their Critique: from Computocentrism and Neurocentrism to Inner Sociality. Discourse. 2025;11(5):19-33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2025-11-5-19-33
Views:
23
Email this article 