Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):633-634 (1998)

Authors
Abstract
Van Gelder's specification of the dynamical hypothesis does not improve on previous notions. All three key attributes of dynamical systems apply to Turing machines and are hence too general. However, when a more restricted definition of a dynamical system is adopted, it becomes clear that the dynamical hypothesis is too underspecified to constitute an interesting cognitive claim.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x98271731
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,039
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Dynamical Hypothesis: One Battle Behind.Robert M. French & Elizabeth Thomas - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):640-641.
What Might Dynamical Intentionality Be, If Not Computation?Ronald L. Chrisley - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
Dynamical Modeling and Morphological Analysis.Jean Petitot - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):649-649.
Why Dynamical Implementation Matters.James W. Garson - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):641-642.
The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science.Tim van Gelder - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):615-28.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
50 ( #226,458 of 2,505,227 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,705 of 2,505,227 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes