Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):587-601 (2003)
Abstract |
Newell proposed that cognitive theories be developed in an effort to satisfy multiple criteria and to avoid theoretical myopia. He provided two overlapping lists of 13 criteria that the human cognitive architecture would have to satisfy in order to be functional. We have distilled these into 12 criteria: flexible behavior, real-time performance, adaptive behavior, vast knowledge base, dynamic behavior, knowledge integration, natural language, learning, development, evolution, and brain realization. There would be greater theoretical progress if we evaluated theories by a broad set of criteria such as these and attended to the weaknesses such evaluations revealed. To illustrate how theories can be evaluated we apply these criteria to both classical connectionism and the ACT-R theory. The strengths of classical connectionism on this test derive from its intense effort in addressing empirical phenomena in such domains as language and cognitive development. Its weaknesses derive from its failure to acknowledge a symbolic level to thought. In contrast, ACT-R includes both symbolic and subsymbolic components. The strengths of the ACT-R theory derive from its tight integration of the symbolic component with the subsymbolic component. Its weaknesses largely derive from its failure, as yet, to adequately engage in intensive analyses of issues related to certain criteria on Newell's list. Key Words: cognitive architecture; connectionism; hybrid systems; language; learning; symbolic systems
|
Keywords | cognitive architecture connectionism hybrid systems language learning symbolic systems |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1017/s0140525x0300013x |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Book: Cognitive Design for Artificial Minds.Antonio Lieto - 2021 - London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Can Quantum Probability Provide a New Direction for Cognitive Modeling?Emmanuel M. Pothos & Jerome R. Busemeyer - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3):255-274.
From Symbols to Knowledge Systems: A. Newell and H. A. Simon's Contribution to Symbolic AI.Luis M. Augusto - 2021 - Journal of Knowledge Structures and Systems 2 (1):29 - 62.
Explanations in Cognitive Science: Unification Versus Pluralism.Marcin Miłkowski & Mateusz Hohol - 2020 - Synthese 199 (Suppl 1):1-17.
The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction.Emmanuel M. Pothos - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
View all 29 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
The Hardest Test for a Theory of Cognition: The Input Test.Asim Roy - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):618-619.
Meeting Newell's Other Challenge: Cognitive Architectures as the Basis for Cognitive Engineering.Wayne D. Gray, Michael J. Schoelles & Christopher W. Myers - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):609-610.
Rethinking Learning and Development in the Newell Test.Sylvain Sirois - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):619-620.
Optimism for the Future of Unified Theories.John R. Anderson & Christian Lebiere - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):628-633.
Evaluating Connectionism: A Developmental Perspective.Claire F. O'Loughlin & Annette Karmiloff-Smith - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):614-615.
Developing a Domain-General Framework for Cognition: What is the Best Approach?James L. McClelland, David C. Plaut, Stephen J. Gotts & Tiago V. Maia - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):611-614.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
74 ( #155,821 of 2,505,782 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,705 of 2,505,782 )
2009-01-28
Total views
74 ( #155,821 of 2,505,782 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,705 of 2,505,782 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads