Graduate studies at Western
Minds and Machines 19 (3):301-318 (2009)
|Abstract||According to Ramsey (Representation reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007), only classical cognitive science, with the related notions of input–output and structural representations, meets the job description challenge (the challenge to show that a certain structure or process serves a representational role at the subpersonal level). By contrast, connectionism and other nonclassical models, insofar as they exploit receptor and tacit notions of representation, are not genuinely representational. As a result, Ramsey submits, cognitive science is taking a U-turn from representationalism back to behaviourism, thus presupposing that (1) the emergence of cognitivism capitalized on the concept of representation, and that (2) the materialization of nonclassical cognitive science involves a return to some form of pre-cognitivist behaviourism. We argue against both (1) and (2), by questioning Ramsey’s divide between classical and representational, versus nonclassical and nonrepresentational, cognitive models. For, firstly, connectionist and other nonclassical accounts have the resources to exploit the notion of a structural isomorphism, like classical accounts (the beefing-up strategy); and, secondly, insofar as input–output and structural representations refer to a cognitive agent, classical explanations fail to meet the job description challenge (the deflationary strategy). Both strategies work independently of each other: if the deflationary strategy succeeds, contra (1), cognitivism has failed to capitalize on the relevant concept of representation; if the beefing-up strategy is sound, contra (2), the return to a pre-cognitivist era cancels out.|
|Keywords||Cognitive explanation Representation Cognitivism Connectionism Isomorphism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gerard O'Brien (1998). Connectionism, Analogicity and Mental Content. Acta Analytica 22:111-31.
Gerard O'Brien (1989). Connectionism, Analogicity and Mental Content. Acta Analytica 22 (22):111-31.
Terence E. Horgan (1997). Modelling the Noncomputational Mind: Reply to Litch. Philosophical Psychology 10 (3):365-371.
Keith Butler (1995). Representation and Computation in a Deflationary Assessment of Connectionist Cognitive Science. Synthese 104 (1):71-97.
O. Shagrir (2012). Structural Representations and the Brain. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):519-545.
Rebecca Kukla (1992). Cognitive Models and Representation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (2):219-32.
Jerry A. Fodor & Zenon W. Pylyshyn (1988). Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture. Cognition 28:3-71.
William S. Robinson (1999). Representation and Cognitive Explanation. In Understanding Representation in the Cognitive Sciences: Does Representation Need Reality, Riegler. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub.
Francisco Calvo Garzón & Ángel García Rodríguez (2009). Where is Cognitive Science Heading? Minds and Machines 19 (3):301-318.
Added to index2009-07-10
Total downloads98 ( #8,160 of 739,324 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,324 )
How can I increase my downloads?