David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 11 (4):521-541 (2001)
This paper challenges arguments that systematic patterns of intelligent behavior license the claim that representations must play a role in the cognitive system analogous to that played by syntactical structures in a computer program. In place of traditional computational models, I argue that research inspired by Dynamical Systems theory can support an alternative view of representations. My suggestion is that we treat linguistic and representational structures as providing complex multi-dimensional targets for the development of individual brains. This approach acknowledges the indispensability of the intentional or representational idiom in psychological explanation without locating representations in the brains of intelligent agents
|Keywords||Dynamics Explanation Hypothesis Representation Science System|
|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
Thomas M. Powers (2013). On the Moral Agency of Computers. Topoi 32 (2):227-236.
Similar books and articles
Natika Newton (2001). The Role of Action Representations in the Dynamics of Embodied Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):58-59.
Nick Chater & Ulrike Hahn (1998). What is the Dynamical Hypothesis? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):633-634.
Tim van Gelder (1998). Disentangling Dynamics, Computation, and Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):654-661.
Tony Chemero (2001). Dynamical Explanation and Mental Representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (4):141-142.
Carlos Zednik (2011). The Nature of Dynamical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 78 (2):238-263.
William P. Bechtel (1998). Representations and Cognitive Explanations: Assessing the Dynamicist Challenge in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science 22 (3):295-317.
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.
David C. Noelle (1998). Is the Dynamical Hypothesis Falsifiable? On Unification in Theories of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):647-648.
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.
Tim van Gelder (1998). The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):615-28.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #46,287 of 1,100,913 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #15,096 of 1,100,913 )
How can I increase my downloads?