David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (3):323 – 349 (2008)
The frame problem is the difficulty of explaining how non-magical systems think and act in ways that are adaptively sensitive to context-dependent relevance. Influenced centrally by Heideggerian phenomenology, Hubert Dreyfus has argued that the frame problem is, in part, a consequence of the assumption (made by mainstream cognitive science and artificial intelligence) that intelligent behaviour is representation-guided behaviour. Dreyfus' Heideggerian analysis suggests that the frame problem dissolves if we reject representationalism about intelligence and recognize that human agents realize the property of thrownness (the property of being always already embedded in a context). I argue that this positive proposal is incomplete until we understand exactly how the properties in question may be instantiated in machines like us. So, working within a broadly Heideggerian conceptual framework, I pursue the character of a representation-shunning thrown machine. As part of this analysis, I suggest that the frame problem is, in truth, a two-headed beast. The intra-context frame problem challenges us to say how a purely mechanistic system may achieve appropriate, flexible and fluid action within a context. The inter-context frame problem challenges us to say how a purely mechanistic system may achieve appropriate, flexible and fluid action in worlds in which adaptation to new contexts is open-ended and in which the number of potential contexts is indeterminate. Drawing on the field of situated robotics, I suggest that the intra-context frame problem may be neutralized by systems of special-purpose adaptive couplings, while the inter-context frame problem may be neutralized by systems that exhibit the phenomenon of continuous reciprocal causation. I also defend the view that while continuous reciprocal causation is in conflict with representational explanation, special-purpose adaptive coupling, as well as its associated agential phenomenology, may feature representations. My proposal has been criticized recently by Dreyfus, who accuses me of propagating a cognitivist misreading of Heidegger, one that, because it maintains a role for representation, leads me seriously astray in my handling of the frame problem. I close by responding to Dreyfus' concerns.
|Keywords||background coping continuous reciprocal causation representations situatedness Heidegger frame problem Journal Article|
|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
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Martin Heidegger (1962). Being and Time. London, Scm Press.
John H. Holland (1986). Induction Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Citations of this work BETA
Tom Froese & Shaun Gallagher (2010). Phenomenology and Artificial Life: Toward a Technological Supplementation of Phenomenological Methodology. Husserl Studies 26 (2):83-106.
Julian Kiverstein (2012). The Meaning of Embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (4):740-758.
Julian Kiverstein & Erik Rietveld (2015). The Primacy of Skilled Intentionality: On Hutto & Satne’s the Natural Origins of Content. Philosophia 43 (3):701-721.
Richard Samuels (2010). Classical Computationalism and the Many Problems of Cognitive Relevance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):280-293.
Andrew Buskell (2015). How to Be Skilful: Opportunistic Robustness and Normative Sensitivity. Synthese 192 (5):1445-1466.
Similar books and articles
Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons (2009). What Does the Frame Problem Tell Us About Moral Normativity? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):25 - 51.
L. Crockett (1994). The Turing Test and the Frame Problem: AI's Mistaken Understanding of Intelligence. Ablex.
Scott Hendricks (2006). The Frame Problem and Theories of Belief. Philosophical Studies 129 (2):317-33.
Zenon Pylyshyn (1996). The Frame Problem Blues. Once More, with Feeling. In K. M. Ford & Z. W. Pylyshyn (eds.), The Robot's Dilemma Revisited: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Ablex
David McFarland (1992). Animals as Cost-Based Robots. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):133 – 153.
Kevin B. Korb (1998). The Frame Problem: An AI Fairy Tale. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 8 (3):317-351.
W. F. G. Haselager & J. F. H. Van Rappard (1998). Connectionism, Systematicity, and the Frame Problem. Minds and Machines 8 (2):161-179.
Erik Rietveld (2012). Context-Switching and Responsiveness to Real Relevance. In Julian Kiverstein & Michael Wheeler (eds.), Heidegger and Cognitive Science. Palgrave Macmillan
Patrick Anselme & Robert M. French (1999). Interactively Converging on Context-Sensitive Representations: A Solution to the Frame Problem. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 53 (209):365-385.
Mark Sprevak (2005). The Frame Problem and the Treatment of Prediction. In L. Magnani & R. Dossena (eds.), Computing, Philosophy and Cognition. 4--349.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads119 ( #34,066 of 1,934,425 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #113,193 of 1,934,425 )
How can I increase my downloads?