A computational foundation for the study of cognition
Journal of Cognitive Science 12 (4):323-357 (2011)
| Abstract | Computation is central to the foundations of modern cognitive science, but its role is controversial. Questions about computation abound: What is it for a physical system to implement a computation? Is computation sufficient for thought? What is the role of computation in a theory of cognition? What is the relation between different sorts of computational theory, such as connectionism and symbolic computation? In this paper I develop a systematic framework that addresses all of these questions. Justifying the role of computation requires analysis of implementation, the nexus between abstract computations and concrete physical systems. I give such an analysis, based on the idea that a system implements a computation if the causal structure of the system mirrors the formal structure of the computation. This account can be used to justify the central commitments of artificial intelligence and computational cognitive science: the thesis of computational sufficiency, which holds that the right kind of computational structure suffices for the possession of a mind, and the thesis of computational explanation, which holds that computation provides a general framework for the explanation of cognitive processes. The theses are consequences of the facts that (a) computation can specify general patterns of causal organization, and (b) mentality is an organizational invariant, rooted in such patterns. Along the way I answer various challenges to the computationalist position, such as those put forward by Searle. I close by advocating a kind of minimal computationalism, compatible with a very wide variety of empirical approaches to the mind. This allows computation to serve as a true foundation for cognitive science. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAmir Horowitz (2007). Computation, External Factors, and Cognitive Explanations. Philosophical Psychology 20 (1):65-80.
Gualtiero Piccinini & Andrea Scarantino (2010). Computation Vs. Information Processing: Why Their Difference Matters to Cognitive Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):237-246.
Ronald L. Chrisley (1994). Why Everything Doesn't Realize Every Computation. Minds and Machines 4 (4):403-20.
David J. Chalmers (1996). Does a Rock Implement Every Finite-State Automaton? Synthese 108 (3):309-33.
Paul R. Thagard (2002). How Molecules Matter to Mental Computation. Philosophy of Science 69 (3):497-518.
Nir Fresco (2011). Concrete Digital Computation: What Does It Take for a Physical System to Compute? Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20 (4):513-537.
Gualtiero Piccinini & Andrea Scarantino (2011). Information Processing, Computation, and Cognition. Journal of Biological Physics 37 (1):1-38.
Valerie Gray Hardcastle (1995). Computationalism. Synthese 105 (3):303-17.
David J. Chalmers (1994). On Implementing a Computation. Minds and Machines 4 (4):391-402.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads138 ( #3,086 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #8,982 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
