Escrever um comentário

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction explains the objective of the research, which is to address the definitional ambiguity surrounding the central concepts of cognition and intelligence across multiple disciplines. The study organizes the conceptual landscape by establishing two fundamental theoretical dividing lines: the distinction between mentalist approaches and embodied cognition frameworks, and the differentiation between human-centered and life-centered perspectives. By focusing on these divisions, the research aims to provide essential scaffolding for understanding how various traditions have approached the fundamental questions of what constitutes cognitive activity and intelligent behavior

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The research presented in the preprint is fundamentally a comprehensive conceptual analysis and theoretical organization, and this approach is highly well-suited for the stated objective of addressing the definitional ambiguity surrounding the central concepts of cognition and intelligence across multiple disciplines. To achieve this goal, the methodology relies on organizing the complex conceptual landscape by establishing and analyzing two fundamental theoretical dividing lines: the distinction between mentalist and embodied cognition frameworks and the differentiation between human-centered and life-centered perspectives. This comparative method is appropriate because it provides the essential scaffolding necessary to understand the theoretical tensions within the field and how different research traditions have approached defining cognitive activity and intelligent behavior. The suitability is further evident in the use of structured comparison and synthesis, such as detailing the evolution of human-centered perspectives and formalizing distinctions using comparative tables, which effectively illuminates the divergences in understanding, ranging from cognition as abstract mental processes to cognition as intrinsic life processes

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the data, which, in this theoretical preprint, consists of the comprehensive organization and analysis of the conceptual landscape of cognition and intelligence across multiple disciplines. The main conclusions, which articulate the fundamental divergence between the human-centered and the life-centered traditions, are directly substantiated by the detailed comparative analysis provided throughout the paper. The study utilizes structured evidence, including historical development tracking the shift from classical mentalism to 4E cognition, formal definitions contrasting the two frameworks (e.g., in Table 1, comparing scope and nature of cognitive process), and the identification of specific researchers associated with each view (Table 2). Lastly, the conclusion that computational and embodied approaches can be integrated is supported by the dedicated analytical section on "New Computationalism," which redefines computation to include morphological and info-computational processes that are inherently embodied in natural systems

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The data presentations, which primarily utilize comparative tables and a corresponding visualization, are highly suited to represent the theoretical data generated by this conceptual analysis, as the study aims to organize the complex conceptual landscape of cognition and intelligence around two fundamental dividing lines. Specifically, the use of tabular format is an effective method for delineating key theoretical distinctions, such as comparing the human-centered and life-centered approaches based on scope, the nature of cognitive process, and the definition of intelligence (Table 1). Tables are also appropriately employed to summarize and categorize the specific views of various key researchers regarding cognition and intelligence within the differing perspectives (Table 2), and to define and illustrate diverse computation models found in biological systems (Table 3). The inclusion of Figure 1 further enhances clarity by visualizing the relationships between the two core theoretical divisions-Mentalism versus Embodied Cognition and Human-centered versus Life-centered approaches-which provides essential scaffolding for understanding the field's theoretical tensions

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors clearly discuss, explain, and interpret their theoretical findings by addressing the persistent definitional ambiguity surrounding cognition and intelligence and organizing the conceptual landscape into two fundamental, divergent orientations: the human-centered tradition and the life-centered tradition. They explain the human-centered perspective as defining cognition as distinctively human mental processes and intelligence as a subset of reasoning, problem-solving, and learning capacity, privileging abstract symbolic operations, while interpreting the life-centered view as identifying cognition with life processes themselves and intelligence as the competency of living systems to solve problems under novelty and uncertainty across all biological scales. The discussion meticulously interprets how these divergences fundamentally shape interpretations of mind, life, and intelligent technologies, noting that human-centered approaches dominate mainstream psychology, while life-centered approaches prevail in biology and systems theory. A key interpretation is provided in the "New Computationalism" section, where the authors explain how the alleged contradiction between computational and embodied approaches is dissolved by redefining computation as necessarily embodied information processing in natural systems, suggesting that sophisticated intelligence emerges through integrating information processing with physical organization. Regarding next steps, the authors conclude that future research may benefit from recognizing the complementary insights of both traditions, leveraging human-centered approaches for analyzing complex symbolic reasoning and life-centered approaches for revealing fundamental cognitive processes

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The preprint is highly likely to advance academic knowledge because it systematically addresses the persistent definitional ambiguity surrounding the concepts of cognition and intelligence across multiple disciplines by effectively organizing the conceptual landscape. The study provides essential scaffolding for understanding the field's theoretical tensions by establishing two fundamental dividing lines-, Mentalism versus Embodied Cognition, and Human-centered versus Life-centered perspectives, and clearly articulating the divergences in defining cognitive activity and intelligent behavior. A significant advancement is the resolution of the alleged contradiction between computational and embodied approaches, demonstrated through "New Computationalism" which explains how sophisticated intelligence emerges by understanding computation as necessarily embodied information processing in natural systems. Moreover, the research contributes crucial insights by detailing how the theoretical divergence fundamentally shapes interpretations and practices in artificial intelligence, medicine, and neuroscience, thereby providing a clear foundation for future longitudinal research that can leverage the complementary insights of both human-centered and life-centered traditions.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The language utilized throughout the preprint is generally professional, precise, and highly effective for communicating the complex conceptual analysis and organizing the theoretical landscape of cognition and intelligence, meaning major language issues do not hinder comprehension. The text successfully maintains technical clarity while describing intricate theoretical distinctions, such as those between mentalist and embodied cognition or the divergence between human-centered and life-centered approaches.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

The preprint is of high quality and is recommended because it provides essential scaffolding for understanding the pervasive definitional ambiguity of cognition and intelligence across multiple disciplines.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.