1. Stephen W. Kercel (2008). New Physical Foundations for Cognitive Science. Journal of Mind and Behavior 29 (1-2):159-193.
    Why should the subject of physics arise in a paper ostensibly concerned with cognitive science and evolutionary biology? If we were advocating a new physics of life and mind simply because we cannot devise an explanation of brain function within the framework of conventional physics, it would appear to reveal a fundamental flaw in the paradigm that we are discussing. If cognition is a biological process, and if biology is ultimately reducible to physics, should not physics be sufficient to entail (...)
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. A. H. Louie & Stephen W. Kercel (2007). Topology and Life Redux: Robert Rosen's Relational Diagrams of Living Systems. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 17 (2):109-136.
    Algebraic/topological descriptions of living processes are indispensable to the understanding of both biological and cognitive functions. This paper presents a fundamental algebraic description of living/cognitive processes and exposes its inherent ambiguity. Since ambiguity is forbidden to computation, no computational description can lend insight to inherently ambiguous processes. The impredicativity of these models is not a flaw, but is, rather, their strength. It enables us to reason with ambiguous mathematical representations of ambiguous natural processes. The noncomputability of these structures means computerized (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Paul Bach-Y.-Rita & Stephen W. Kercel (2003). Sensory Substitution and the Human–Machine Interface. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (12):541-546.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation