Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 16 (1):5-23 (2003)
|Abstract||In recent years the cognitive science community has witnessed the rise of a new, dynamical approach to cognition. This approach entails a framework in which cognition and behavior are taken to result from complex dynamical interactions between brain, body, and environment. The advent of the dynamical approach is grounded in a dissatisfaction with the classical computational view of cognition. A particularly strong claim has been that cognitive systems do not rely on internal representations and computations. Focusing on this claim, we take as a starting point a question recently raised by Cliff and Noble: " if evolution did produce a design that used internal representations, how would we recognize it?" (Knowledge-based vision and simple visual machines, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 352 , 1165-1175, 1997). We will argue that cognitive science lacks a proper operationalization of the notion of representation, and therefore is unable to fruitfully discuss whether a particular system has representations or not. A basic method to detect representations in a physical system, grounded in isomorphism, turns out to be quite unconstrained. We will look at a practical example of this problem by examining the debate on whether or not van Gelder's (What might cognition be, if not computation? Journal of Philosophy, 92 , 345-381, 1995) controversial example of the Watt Governor is representational. We will conclude that cognitive science, as of yet, has no empirically applicable means to answer Cliff and Noble's question unequivocally. This makes the recent representationalism vs. anti-representationalism debate a debate for the sake of appearance|
|Keywords||Cognition Machine Psychology Representationalism Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Benny Shanon (1998). The Intrinsic Temporality of Human Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):650-651.
Tony Chemero (2001). Dynamical Explanation and Mental Representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (4):141-142.
Amy Kind (2007). Restrictions on Representationalism. Philosophical Studies 134 (3):405-427.
Andy Clark & Josefa Toribio (1994). Doing Without Representing. Synthese 101 (3):401-31.
Uriah Kriegel (2009). Self-Representationalism and Phenomenology. Philosophical Studies 143 (3):357-381.
Uriah Kriegel (2011). Self-Representationalism and the Explanatory Gap. In J. Liu & J. Perry (eds.), Consciousness and the Self: New Essays. Cambridge University Press.
Chris Eliasmith (1997). Computation and Dynamical Models of Mind. Minds and Machines 7 (4):531-41.
Anthony Chemero (2000). Anti-Representationalism and the Dynamical Stance. Philosophy of Science 67 (4):625-647.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #35,949 of 738,363 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,464 of 738,363 )
How can I increase my downloads?