Computation and dynamical models of mind (original) (raw)
Related papers
1995
Recently, a new approach to modeling cognitive phenomena has been gaining recognition: the dynamical systems approach. Proponents of this theory claim to have identified a new paradigm for the study of cognition which is superior to both symbolicism and connectionism.
The presence of representations in a cognitive system has been a contentious issue since ages in the field of cognitive science. In this paper, I state in brief the various schools of thoughts that have come up with their own notion of representation. Further, we shall consider the Watt governor and its conception as a noncomputational, nonrepresentational model by Tim van Gelder. Such a view will be contrasted by William Bechtel’s argument with further reference to Hutto and Myin’s Radical Embodiment. Keywords: Representation, dynamical systems, classical computation
A Critical Reappraisal of the Dynamical Approach to Cognition
2007
Approaches to cognitive science have been socially divided into dynamical and computational camps. We break down the dynamical approach into finer components, suggesting a new taxonomy of dynamical approaches to cognition and questioning the logical unity of the dynamical school. We dispel some confusions surrounding the concepts of dynamical systems, computation, and the relation between the two. We introduce and argue for the notion of "cognition as it could be" and show its value in analysing the dynamicists' account of time.
Mental Representations and the Dynamic Theory of Mind
Logos & Episteme, 2012
In this paper I will investigate the possibility of defending the concept of 'mental representation' against certain contemporary critiques. Some authors, like Anthony Chemero, argue that it is possible to explain offline actions with dynamic concepts. Hence, the dynamic discourse preempts the representational one. I doubt that this is a recommendable strategy. A form of representation is necessary, though one which is different from the classical one. Instead of eliminating the concept of representation (as radical dynamicists do) or of splitting cognitive explanation in two separate discourses (as the adepts of the hybrid cognition version do), I consider that a dynamic concept of 'representation' is a better option. In my view, the higher level order resulted from the complex brain-body-environment coupling can be interpreted as being representational in nature. The dynamic paradigm involves a significant change concerning the intentional nature of representational states: the basic forms of representations are not maps of reality implemented as such in the brain, but limit conditions, attractors constraining the cognitive system's evolution in its space state to reach its goals. On a certain threshold of complexity, the system develops stable attractors and attractor landscapes which could be interpreted as standing for something outside the system. This conception offers the advantages of avoiding preemption argument, of unifying the cognitive explanation and, by its interscalar account, offers dynamic tools for building more complex artificial intelligent systems.
Dynamical Systems Theory in Cognition: Are We Really Gaining?
2011
Dynamical Systems Theory (DST) claims to be an epistemological weapon particularly broad and rich in providing a fair explanatory account of the operations of our mind. However, the very features that this DST espouses as reasons for having an edge over Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), are the ones that are causing trouble in the philosophy of science speculation, especially regarding issues of Explanation. This paper aims to suggest some possible problems that could arise from the application of DST’s characteristically abstract mathematical framework to the study of the mind. As I have not found anything that suggests something like this, my aim is to at least show the reasonability of a possibility.
Dynamical Systems in Cognition: Are We Really Gaining?
Dynamical Systems Theory (DST) claims to be an epistemological weapon particularly broad and rich in providing a fair explanatory account of the operations of our mind. However, the very features that DST espouses as reasons for having an edge over Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are the ones that are causing trouble in the philosophy of science, especially regarding issues of Explanation. This paper aims to suggest some possible problems that could arise from the application of DST’s characteristically abstract mathematical framework to the study of the mind. As I have not found anything that suggests something like this, my aim is to at least show the reasonableness of a possibility.
Cognitive Science, Representations and Dynamical Systems Theory
Studies of Nonlinear Phenomena in Life Science, 2003
In this paper we point out that the assumption of representation in the explanations and models of cognitive science has several disadvantages. We propose that the dynamical systems theory approach, emphasizing the embodied embedded nature of cognition, might provide an important, non-representational alternative. We stress the importance of the challenge, raised by Andy Clark , to dynamical systems theory to deal with 'representation-hungry' cognitive tasks. We indicate a possible way to answer that challenge in a empirically applicable manner. We suggest that investigations of this kind strengthen a motto that can be used as an antidote to the traditional representational cravings of cognitive science: 'Don't use representations in explanation and modeling unless it is absolutely necessary.'