Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive science

  • Published:
Metascience Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Fodor, J.The Language of Thought, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Harnad, S. “The Symbol Grounding Problem”,Physica D,42,1990.

  3. Kasparov, G.Test of Time, Pergamon, 1986.

  4. Minsky M. L. & Papert, S.Perceptrons, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. “Computer Science as Empirical Enquiry: Symbols and Search”,Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 9, March, 1976.

  6. Searle, J. “Minds, Brains, and Programs”,Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1980.

  7. Sejnowski, T. & Rosenberg, C. “NETtalk: a Parallel Network that Learns to Read Aloud”,John Hopkins Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Technical Report, JHUIEEC-86/0,1986.

  8. Smith, B. C. “Prologue to Reflection and Semantics in a Procedural Language”, in R. Brachman & H. Levesque, eds,Readings in Knowledge Representation., Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thagard, P.Mind:Introduction to Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT/Bradford, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. R.F. Port and T. van Gelder (eds)Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. Pp. 600. US$60 HB.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. T. van Gelder, “What might cognition be if not computation?”Journal of Philisophy, 92, 1995, pp. 354–81.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. W. Greenet al., Cognitive Science: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Brooks, “Intelligence without reason”, in L. Steels and R. Brooks (eds),The Artificial Life Route to Artificial Intelligence. Amsterdam: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, pp. 25–70.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Rosenberg and T. Sejnowski, “Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English text”,Complex Systems, 1, 1987, pp. 145–68.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Fodor and Z. Pylyshyn, “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis”,Cognition, 28, 1988, pp. 3–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P. Smolensky, “Connectionism, Constituency and the Language of Thought”, in B. Loewer and G. Rey (eds),Meaning in Mind:Fodor and his Critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. See also P. Smolensky, “On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism”,Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 1988, pp. 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. M. Churchland, “Some reductive strategies in cognitive neurobiology”,A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989, pp. 77–110. First published inMind, 95, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B.C. Smith, “The Owl and the Electric Encyclopaedia”, in D. Kirsh (ed.),Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, 1991, pp. 251–88.

  10. See the table,ibid. p. 259.

  11. But for an anti-computationalist gloss on Smolensky, see T. Horgan and J. Tienson,Connectionism and the Philosophy of Psychology, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See, for example, R. Young and T. O’Shea, “Errors in children’s subtraction”,Cognitive Science, 5, 1982, pp. 153–77; also M. Sharpies, ‘Models of Cognition’, Ch. 8 of M. Sharpieset al., Computers and Thought:A Practical Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

References

  1. P. van Geert,Dynamic Systems of Development: Change Between Complexity and Chaos, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994, p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Karmiloff-Smith.Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See also van Geert,op.cit. (note 1) and “A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth”.Psychological Review, 98, pp. 3–53.

    Google Scholar 

  4. van Geert,op.cit. (note 1), p. 275.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., pp. 205–6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid., pp. 145–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.T. Lamiell, “Rethinking the role of quantitative methods in psychology”, in J. A. Smith, R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (eds),Rethinking Methods in Psychology, London: Sage, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See also E. Thelen & L.B. Smith,A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994. Also the Introduction to Section II of L.B. Smith & E. Thelen (eds)A dynamic systems approach to development: applications, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.A. Fodor,The Modularity of Mind, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See, e.g., B. Shanon,The Representational and the Presentational: An essay on Cognition and the Study of Mind, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Bem & F. Keijzer, “Recent changes in the concept of cognition”,Theory & Psychology, 6, 1996, pp. 449–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. F.A. Keijzer & S. Bern, “Behavioral systems interpreted as autonomous agents and as coupled dynamical-systems: A criticism”,Philosophical Psychology, 9, 1996, pp. 323–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thelen & Smithop.cit.(note 8).

    Google Scholar 

  14. G.M. Edelman,Neural Darwinism: The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection, New York: Basic Books, 1987 andBright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind, London: Penguin, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G.L. Murphy, “Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation”,Cognition,62, pp. 99–108.

  16. T. van Gelder, “What might cognition be, if not computation?”The Journal of Philosophy, 91, pp. 354–81; H. Hendriks-Jansen,Catching Ourselves in the Act: Situated Activity, Interactive Emergence, Evolution, and Human Thought, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996.

  17. Smith and Thelen,op.cit.(note 8), 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Berkenstein, J. “Entropy bounds and black hole remnants”,Physics Review, D49, 1994, pp. 1912–21, gr-qc 9307035.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Blum, L., Shub, M. and Smale, S. “On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines”,Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 21, 1991, pp. 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bournez, O. and Cosnard, M. “On the computational power and super-Turing capabilities of dynamical systems”,NeuroCOLT Technical Report NC-TR-96-005, Department LIP, ENS-Lyon, France, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bringsjord, S. “Computation among other things, is beneath us”,Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy and Cognitive science, 4, 1994, pp. 467–86.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crutchfield, J. “Observing complexity and the complexity of observation”,Proceedings of the international workshop on Endo/Exo-problems in physics, Ringberg Castle, Germany, 29 March 1993.

  5. Crutchfield, J. “Critical Computation, Phase Transitions and Hierarchical Learning, in Towards Harnessing Chaos”,Proceedings of the 7th Toyota Conference, Lake Hamana, Shizuoka, Japan, 1994.

  6. Darley, V. “Emergent Phenomena and Complexity”,Artificial Life IV, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, N. and Eichenbaum, H.Memory, Amnesia and the Hippocampal System, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fontana, W. and Buss, L. “The barrier of objects: From dynamical systems to bounded organizations”, in J. Casti and A. Karlqvist (eds),Boundaries and Barriers, New York: Addison Wesley, 1996, pp. 56–116.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gibbs, P. “The Small scale structure of space-time: A bibliographic review”, hep-th/9506171,Physics preprints archive, http://xxx.lanl.gov/, 1995.

  10. Globus, G. “Toward a Noncomputational Cognitive Neuroscience”,Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 1992, pp. 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Globus, G.The Postmodern Brain, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldfarb, L., Abela, J., Bhavsar, V., and Kamat, V. “Can a vector space based learning model discover inductive class generalization in a symbolic environment?”,Pattern Recognition Letters, 16, 1995, pp. 719–26, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harnad, S. “Computation is just interpretable symbol manipulation, cognition isn“t”,Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy and Cognitive science, 4, 1994, pp. 379–90.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kolen, J., Pollack, J. “The Observer’s Paradox: Apparent computational complexity in physical systems”,Journal of Experimental and Theoretical AI, 7, 1995, pp. 253–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Konishi, K., Paffuti, G., and Provero, P. “Minimum Physical Length and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle”,Physics Letters, B234, 276 2E, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moore, C. “Unpredictability and Undecidability in Dynamical Systems”,Physical Review Letters, 64, 1990, pp. 2354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ray, T. S. “Evolution, complexity, entropy, and artificial reality”,Physica D, 75, 1994, pp. 239–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stadler, P. “Landscapes and their correlation functions”,Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 20, 1996, pp. 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Copeland, J.Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Grossberg, S. & Gutowski, W.E. “Neural dynamics of decision making under risk: affective balance and cognitive-emotional interactions”,Psychological Review, 94, 1987, pp. 303–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Haugeland, J. (ed.),Mind Design II. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leven, S.J., & Levine, D.S. “Multiattribute decision making in context: a dynamic neural network methodology”,Cognitive Science, 20, 1996.

  5. van Gelder, T.J. “The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science”,Behavioral and Brain Sciences (forthcoming).

Reference

  1. Annette Karmiloff-Smith,Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT/Bradford, 1992. Pp. xi + 234. A$66 HB.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Benny Shanon,The Representational and the Presentational: An Essay on Cognition and the Study of Mind. London: Harvester, 1993. Pp. 409. £ 23.95 HB.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. M. Behrmann, S.M. Kosslyn and M. Jeannrod (eds),The Neuropsychology of Mental Imagery. Oxford: Pergamon, 1995. Pp. 250. US$60 HB.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Donald Peterson (ed.),Forms of Representation: An Interdisciplinary Theme for Cognitive Science. Exeter: Intellect Books, 1996. Pp. 208. £ 19.95 PB.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Terry Dartnall (ed.),Artificial Intelligence and Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. Pp. xvi + 455. A$155 HB.

    Google Scholar 

Reference

  1. Kenneth M. Ford, Clark Glymour and Patrick J. Hayes (eds),Android Epistemology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. Pp. 316.US$25 PB.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Technology, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Terry Dartnall

  2. Cognition and Brain Sciences Research Centre, Middlesex University School of Psychology, Queensway, Enfield, Middlesex, England

    Steve Torrance, Mark Coulson & Stephen Nunn

  3. Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass., USA

    Brendan Kitts

  4. (TvG) Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    R. F. Port

  5. (RFP) Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

    T. van Gelder

  6. Faculty of Science and Technology, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Terry Dartnall

  7. Cognitive Science Programme, School of Computer Science, Birmingham University, Birmingham, England

    Donald Peterson

  8. School of Philosophy, Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Philip Gerrans

Authors
  1. Terry Dartnall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Torrance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Coulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Nunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brendan Kitts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. F. Port
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. van Gelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Donald Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Philip Gerrans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dartnall, T., Torrance, S., Coulson, M. et al. Cognitive science. Metascience 5, 95–166 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988881

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988881

Search

Navigation