Graduate studies at Western
Cognitive Science 36 (5):870-895 (2012)
|Abstract||Understanding the role of ‘‘representations’’ in cognitive science is a fundamental problem facing the emerging framework of embodied, situated, dynamical cognition. To make progress, I follow the approach proposed by an influential representational skeptic, Randall Beer: building artificial agents capable of minimally cognitive behaviors and assessing whether their internal states can be considered to involve representations. Hence, I operationalize the concept of representing as ‘‘standing in,’’ and I look for representations in embodied agents involved in simple categorization tasks. In a first experiment, no representation can be found, but the relevance of the task is undermined by the fact that agents with no internal states can reach high performance. A simple modification makes the task more “representationally hungry,” and in this case, agents’ internal states are found to qualify as representations. I conclude by discussing the benefits of reconciling the embodied-dynamical approach with the notion of representation|
|Keywords||Representation Embodied cognition Categorization Minimally cognitive behavior Dynamical systems Anti‐representationalism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tony Chemero (2001). Dynamical Explanation and Mental Representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (4):141-142.
Alvaro Moreno, On What Makes Certain Dynamical Systems Cognitive: A Minimally Cognitive Organization Program.
Michael R. W. Dawson & Corinne Zimmerman (2003). Interpreting the Internal Structure of a Connectionist Model of the Balance Scale Task. Brain and Mind 4 (2):129-149.
Scott Hotton & Jeff Yoshimi (2011). Extending Dynamical Systems Theory to Model Embodied Cognition. Cognitive Science 35 (3):444-479.
Natika Newton (2001). The Role of Action Representations in the Dynamics of Embodied Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):58-59.
Susan A. J. Stuart (2002). A Radical Notion of Embeddedness: A Logically Necessary Precondition for Agency and Self-Awareness. Metaphilosophy 33 (1-2):98-109.
Christopher Habel, Barbara Kaup & Stephanie Kelter (1997). Embodied Representations Are Part of a Grouping of Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):26-26.
John Symons (2001). Explanation, Representation and the Dynamical Hypothesis. Minds and Machines 11 (4):521-541.
Chris Dobbyn & Susan A. J. Stuart (2003). The Self as an Embedded Agent. Minds and Machines 13 (2):187-201.
Pim Haselager, A. de Groot & H. van Rappard (2003). Representationalism Vs. Anti-Representationalism: A Debate for the Sake of Appearance. Philosophical Psychology 16 (1):5-23.
Rick Grush (2003). In Defense of Some "Cartesian" Assumption Concerning the Brain and its Operation. Biology and Philosophy 18 (1):53-92.
Tim van Gelder (1998). The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):615-28.
Carlos Zednik (2011). The Nature of Dynamical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 78 (2):238-263.
Frank van der Velde & Marc de Kamps (1998). Toward a Synthesis of Dynamical Systems and Classical Computation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):652-653.
Alvin I. Goldman (2012). A Moderate Approach to Embodied Cognitive Science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (1):71-88.
Added to index2012-03-15
Total downloads21 ( #65,455 of 739,578 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,288 of 739,578 )
How can I increase my downloads?