Dlaczego reprezentacje nie trzymają się modeli dynamicznych?
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEData publikacji: 26.11.2014
Rocznik Kognitywistyczny, 2014, Tom 7, s. 21 - 30
https://doi.org/10.4467/20843895RK.14.004.2690Autorzy
Why representations don't stick with dynamic models?
In this paper I investigate thesis, embraced by proponents of dynamicism in cognitive science, that mind is not representational and explanation of cognition can go without representations. This claim has received serious criticism from cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind, who accuse dynamical explanation of being satisfying only for a narrow class of simple cognitive phenomena. Thus, genuine, representation-free explanation of cognition will always be incomplete. I espouse another strategy and present two arguments saying that the language of pure dynamical systems theory is not rich enough to define any nontrivial notion of representation. If I am right, then at least these phenomena dynamical explanation deals well with are not representational and representation talk can in no way help us understand them
BIBLIOGRAFIA
Brooks R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. „Artificial Intelligence” 47, s. 139–159.
Clark A., Toribio J. (1994). Doing without representing? „Synthese” 101, s. 401–431.
Clark A. (1997). The dynamical challenge. „Cognitive Science” 21, s. 461–481.
Clark A. (2001). Mindware: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dennett D. (1998). Revolution, no! Reform, si! „Brain and Behavioral Sciences” 21, s. 636–637.
Eliasmith C. (1997). Computation and dynamical models of mind. „Minds and Machines” 7, s. 531–541.
Gelder T. van (1995). What might cognition be, if not computation? „The Journal of Philosophy” 26, s. 345–381.
Gelder T. van, Port R. (1995). It’s about time: an overview of the dynamical approach to cognition [w:] R. Port, T. van Gelder (red.), Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge–London: MIT Press.
Gelder T. van (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. „Behavioral and Brain Sciences” 21, s. 615–665.
Grush R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. „Behavioral and Brain Sciences” 27, s. 377–396.
Miłkowski M. (2013). Explaining the Computational Mind. Cambridge–London: MIT Press.
Mitchell M. (1998). A complex-systems perspective on the “computation vs. dynamics” debate in cognitive science [w:] M.A. Gernsbacher, S.J. Derry (red.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society – CogSci 1998, s. 710–715.
Newell A., Simon H. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. „Communications of the ACM” 19, s. 113–126.
Port R., Gelder T. van (red.) (1995). Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge–London: MIT Press.
Smith L., Thelen E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. „Trends in Cognitive Sciences” 7, s. 343–348.
Smolensky P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. „Behavioral and Brain Sciences” 11, s. 1–74.
Thompson E. (2010). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Varela F., Thompson E., Rosch E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge–London: MIT Press.
Wiener N. (1948). Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris: Technology Press.
Informacje: Rocznik Kognitywistyczny, 2014, Tom 7, s. 21 - 30
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Why representations don’t stick with dynamic models?
Uniwersytet Warszawski, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 30, 00-927 Warszawa, Polska
Publikacja: 26.11.2014
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: Żadna
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
PolskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2192
Liczba pobrań: 1609