Minds and Machines 5 (1):25-44 (1995)
|Abstract||Computationalist theories of mind require brain symbols, that is, neural events that represent kinds or instances of kinds. Standard models of computation require multiple inscriptions of symbols with the same representational content. The satisfaction of two conditions makes it easy to see how this requirement is met in computers, but we have no reason to think that these conditions are satisfied in the brain. Thus, if we wish to give computationalist explanations of human cognition, without committing ourselvesa priori to a strong and unsupported claim in neuroscience, we must first either explain how we can provide multiple brain symbols with the same content, or explain how we can abandon standard models of computation. It is argued that both of these alternatives require us to explain the execution of complex tasks that have a cognition-like structure. Circularity or regress are thus threatened, unless noncomputationalist principles can provide the required explanations. But in the latter case, we do not know that noncomputationalist principles might not bear most of the weight of explaining cognition. Four possible types of computationalist theory are discussed; none appears to provide a promising solution to the problem. Thus, despite known difficulties in noncomputationalist investigations, we have every reason to pursue the search for noncomputationalist principles in cognitive theory|
|Keywords||Brain Cognition Computation Connectionism Mind Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven Horst (1999). Symbols and Computation: A Critique of the Computational Theory of Mind. Minds and Machines 9 (3):347-381.
A. J. Wells (1999). External Symbols Are a Better Bet Than Perceptual Symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):634-635.
Paul Skokowski (1997). Neural Computation, Architecture, and Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):80-80.
Grant R. Gillett (1989). Representations and Cognitive Science. Inquiry 32 (September):261-77.
Chris Eliasmith & Andy Clark (2002). Philosophical Issues in Brain Theory and Connectionism. In M. Arbib (ed.), The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Mit Press.
Selmer Bringsjord (1998). Cognition is Not Computation: The Argument From Irreversibility. Synthese 113 (2):285-320.
Stevan Harnad (1994). Computation is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation; Cognition Isn't. Minds and Machines 4 (4):379-90.
Paul R. Thagard (2002). How Molecules Matter to Mental Computation. Philosophy of Science 69 (3):497-518.
David J. Chalmers (2011). A Computational Foundation for the Study of Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Science 12 (4):323-357.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #57,791 of 722,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?