Concrete digital computation: competing accounts and its role in cognitive science

Dissertation, University of New South Wales (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There are currently considerable confusion and disarray about just how we should view computationalism, connectionism and dynamicism as explanatory frameworks in cognitive science. A key source of this ongoing conflict among the central paradigms in cognitive science is an equivocation on the notion of computation simpliciter. ‘Computation’ is construed differently by computationalism, connectionism, dynamicism and computational neuroscience. I claim that these central paradigms, properly understood, can contribute to an integrated cognitive science. Yet, before this claim can be defended, a better understanding of ‘computation’ is required. ‘Digital computation’ is an ambiguous concept. It is not just the classical dichotomy between analogue and digital computation that is the basis for the equivocation on ‘computation’ simpliciter in cognitive science, but also the diversity of extant accounts of digital computation. There are many answers on what it takes for a system to perform digital computation. Answers to this problem range from Turing machine computation, through the formal manipulation of symbols, the execution of algorithms and others, to the strong-pancomputational thesis, according to which every physical system computes every Turing-computable function. Despite some overlap among them, extant accounts of concrete digital computation are non-equivalent, thus, rendering ‘digital computation’ ambiguous. The objective of this dissertation is twofold. First, it is to promote a clearer understanding of concrete digital computation. Accordingly, my main thesis is that not only are extant accounts of concrete digital computation non-equivalent, but most of them are inadequate. I show that these accounts are not just intensionally different (this is quite trivially the case), but also extensionally distinct. In the course of examining several key accounts of concrete digital computation, I propose the instructional information processing account, according to which digital computation is the processing of discrete data in accordance with finite instructional information. The second objective is to establish the foundational role of computation in cognitive science whilst rejecting the purported representational nature of computation

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Concrete Digital Computation: What Does it Take for a Physical System to Compute? [REVIEW]Nir Fresco - 2011 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20 (4):513-537.
On implementing a computation.David J. Chalmers - 1994 - Minds and Machines 4 (4):391-402.
A computational foundation for the study of cognition.David Chalmers - 2011 - Journal of Cognitive Science 12 (4):323-357.
What might dynamical intentionality be, if not computation?Ronald L. Chrisley - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
Computationalism.Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 1995 - Synthese 105 (3):303-17.
Neural and super-Turing computing.Hava T. Siegelmann - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (1):103-114.
?Words lie in our way?Bruce J. MacLennan - 1994 - Minds and Machines 4 (4):421-37.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-05-17

Downloads
69 (#213,777)

6 months
2 (#658,848)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nir Fresco
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Citations of this work

Miscomputation.Nir Fresco & Giuseppe Primiero - 2013 - Philosophy and Technology 26 (3):253-272.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references