The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):615-28 (1998)
| Abstract | The dynamical hypothesis is the claim that cognitive agents are dynamical systems. It stands opposed to the dominant computational hypothesis, the claim that cognitive agents are digital computers. This target article articulates the dynamical hypothesis and defends it as an open empirical alternative to the computational hypothesis. Carrying out these objectives requires extensive clarification of the conceptual terrain, with particular focus on the relation of dynamical systems to computers | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesTim van Gelder (1998). Computers and Computation in Cognitive Science. In T.M. Michalewicz (ed.), Advances in Computational Life Sciences Vol.2: Humans to Proteins. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.
Tim van Gelder (1998). Disentangling Dynamics, Computation, and Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):654-661.
Nick Braisby, Richard Cooper & Bradley Franks (1998). Why the Dynamical Hypothesis Cannot Qualify as a Law of Qualitative Structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):630-631.
Robert M. French & Elizabeth Thomas (1998). The Dynamical Hypothesis: One Battle Behind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):640-641.
David C. Noelle (1998). Is the Dynamical Hypothesis Falsifiable? On Unification in Theories of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):647-648.
Ronald L. Chrisley (1998). What Might Dynamical Intentionality Be, If Not Computation? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
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.
Nick Chater & Ulrike Hahn (1998). What is the Dynamical Hypothesis? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):633-634.
Gerard O'Brien (1998). Digital Computers Versus Dynamical Systems: A Conflation of Distinctions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):648-649.
Gerard O.’Brien (1998). Digital Computers Versus Dynamical Systems: A Conflation of Distinctions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:648-649.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads128 ( #3,654 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #5,358 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
