David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 7 (4):531-41 (1997)
Van Gelder (1995) has recently spearheaded a movement to challenge the dominance of connectionist and classicist models in cognitive science. The dynamical conception of cognition is van Gelder's replacement for the computation bound paradigms provided by connectionism and classicism. He relies on the Watt governor to fulfill the role of a dynamicist Turing machine and claims that the Motivational Oscillatory Theory (MOT) provides a sound empirical basis for dynamicism. In other words, the Watt governor is to be the theoretical exemplar of the class of systems necessary for cognition and MOT is an empirical instantiation of that class. However, I shall argue that neither the Watt governor nor MOT successfully fulfill these prescribed roles. This failure, along with van Gelder's peculiar use of the concept of computation and his struggle with representationalism, prevent him from providing a convincing alternative to current cognitive theories
|Keywords||Mind Model Science System Time Van Gelder, T|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gregory R. Mulhauser (1998). Nature's Subtlety Undermines the Empirical Relevance of Both Dynamical and Computational Hypotheses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):646-647.
Michael Wheeler (1998). An Appeal for Liberalism, or Why Van Gelder's Notion of a Dynamical System is Too Narrow for Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):653-654.
Chris Eliasmith (1998). Dynamical Models and Van Gelder's Dynamicism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):639-639.
Tim van Gelder (1995). What Might Cognition Be If Not Computation? Journal of Philosophy 92 (7):345-81.
Terence Horgan & John Tienson (1998). Resisting the Tyranny of Terminology: The General Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):643-643.
Fred A. Keijzer, Sacha Ben & Lex van der Heijden (1998). The Dynamics of What? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):644-645.
Joseph Ulric Neisser (1999). On the Use and Abuse of Dasein in Cognitive Science. The Monist 82 (2):347-361.
Ronald L. Chrisley (1998). What Might Dynamical Intentionality Be, If Not Computation? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads90 ( #14,751 of 1,099,911 )
Recent downloads (6 months)28 ( #6,562 of 1,099,911 )
How can I increase my downloads?