Computation vs. Information Processing: Why Their Difference Matters to Cognitive Science

Since the cognitive revolution, it’s become commonplace that cognition involves both computation and information processing. Is this one claim or two? Is computation the same as information processing? The two terms are often used interchangeably, but this usage masks important differences. In this paper, we distinguish information processing from computation and examine some of their mutual relations, shedding light on the role each can play in a theory of cognition. We recommend that theorists of cognition be explicit and careful in choosing\ud notions of computation and information and connecting them together. Much confusion can be avoided by doing so

Information Processing, Computation and Cognition

Computation and information processing are among the most fundamental notions in cognitive science. They are also among the most imprecisely discussed. Many cognitive scientists take it for granted that cognition involves computation, information processing, or both – although others disagree vehemently. Yet different cognitive scientists use ‘computation’ and ‘information processing’ to mean different things, sometimes without realizing that they do. In addition, computation and information processing are surrounded by several myths; first and foremost, that they are the same thing. In this paper, we address this unsatisfactory state of affairs by presenting a general and theory-neutral account of computation and information processing. We also apply our framework by analyzing the relations between computation and information processing on one hand and classicism and connectionism/computational neuroscience on the other. We defend the relevance to cognitive science of both computation, at least in a generic sense, and information processing, in three important senses of the term. Our account advances several foundational debates in cognitive science by untangling some of their conceptual knots in a theory-neutral way. By leveling the playing field, we pave the way for the future resolution of the debates’ empirical aspects

Session 5: Development, Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psychology

Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Workshop in History and Philosophy of Biology, Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, March 23-24 2001 Session 5: Development, Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psycholog

Explicating Emotions

In the course of their long intellectual history, emotions have been identified with items as diverse as perceptions of bodily changes (feeling tradition), judgments (cognitivist tradition), behavioral predispositions (behaviorist tradition), biologically based solutions to fundamental life tasks (evolutionary tradition), and culturally specific social artifacts (social constructionist tradition). The first objective of my work is to put some order in the mare magnum of theories of emotions. I taxonomize them into families and explore the historical origin and current credentials of the arguments and intuitions supporting them. I then evaluate the methodology of past and present emotion theory, defending a bleak conclusion: a great many emotion theorists ask "What is an emotion?" without a clear understanding of what counts as getting the answer right. I argue that there are two ways of getting the answer right. One is to capture the conditions of application of the folk term "emotion" in ordinary language (Folk Emotion Project), and the other is to formulate a fruitful explication of it (Explicating Emotion Project). Once we get clear on the desiderata of these two projects, we realize that several long-running debates in emotion theory are motivated by methodological confusions. The constructive part of my work is devoted to formulating a new explication of emotion suitable for the theoretical purposes of scientific psychology. At the heart of the Urgency Management System (UMS) theory of emotions I propose is the idea that an "umotion" is a special type of superordinate system which instantiates and manages an urgent action tendency by coordinating the operation of a cluster of cognitive, perceptual and motoric subsystems. Crucially, such superordinate system has a proper function by virtue of which it acquires a special kind of intentionality I call pragmatic. I argue that "umotion" is sufficiently similar in use to "emotion" to count as explicating it, it has precise rules of application, and it accommodates a number of central and widely shared intuitions about the emotions. My hope is that future emotion research will demonstrate the heuristic fruitfulness of the "umotion" concept for the sciences of mind

The role of the principle of tolerance in the harmonization of public relations in the Republic of Kazakhstan

The article solves the problem of building a tolerant environment and the formation of an ethic of tolerance in Kazakhstani society. The role of a tolerant environment is to understand a person's place in the world, to master ways of interacting with him, to perceive tolerance as a personally significant value, as interaction with other people, during which personal mutual enrichment and development takes place.It also presents a theoretical and methodological understanding of the meaning of tolerance as a national-cultural worldview, deep human ability to perceive a feature of another culture and beneficially influence its further development through integration with its own culture. Elements of the spiritual culture of tolerance should be understood at the level of everyday interaction between certain phenomena and processes of a complex social structure, which Kazakhstani society today represents.The relevance of the article is due both to the scientific and theoretical need to highlight the main approaches to this issue with the aim of its etymological concretization and, thereby, to remove the problem of abstract interpretation of the content of tolerance, and the practice of implementing the essence of tolerance as a social value.Key words: tolerance, society, mentality, globalization, social worlds

Validation of a Predictive Model for Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Secondary Analysis of RTOG 9714.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to validate a simple predictive model for survival of patients with advanced cancer.MethodsPrevious studies with training and validation datasets developed a model predicting survival of patients referred for palliative radiotherapy using three readily available factors: primary cancer site, site of metastases and Karnofsky performance score (KPS). This predictive model was used in the current study, where each factor was assigned a value proportional to its prognostic weight and the sum of the weighted scores for each patient was survival prediction score (SPS). Patients were also classified according to their number of risk factors (NRF). Three risk groups were established. The Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) 9714 data was used to provide an additional external validation set comprised of patients treated among multiple institutions with appropriate statistical tests.ResultsThe RTOG external validation set comprised of 908 patients treated at 66 different radiation facilities from 1998 to 2002. The SPS method classified all patients into the low-risk group. Based on the NRF, two distinct risk groups with significantly different survival estimates were identified. The ability to predict survival was similar to that of the training and previous validation datasets for both the SPS and NRF methods.ConclusionsThe three variable NRF model is preferred because of its relative simplicity

A New, Better BET: Rescuing and Revising Basic Emotion Theory

Basic Emotion Theory, or BET, has dominated the affective sciences for decades (Ekman, 1972, 1992, 1999; Ekman and Davidson, 1994; Griffiths, 2013; Scarantino and Griffiths, 2011). It has been highly influential, driving a number of empirical lines of research (e.g., in the context of facial expression detection, neuroimaging studies and evolutionary psychology). Nevertheless, BET has been criticized by philosophers, leading to calls for it to be jettisoned entirely (Colombetti, 2014; Hufendiek, 2016). This paper defuses those criticisms. In addition, it shows that we have good reason to retain BET. Finally, it reviews and puts to rest worries that BET’s commitment to affect programs renders it outmoded. We propose that, with minor adjustments, BET can avoid such criticisms when conceived under a radically enactive account of emotions. Thus, rather than leaving BET behind, we show how its basic ideas can be revised, refashioned and preserved. Hence, we conclude, our new BET is still a good bet

Manipulation of Microenvironment with a Built-in Electrochemical Actuator in Proximity of a Dissolved Oxygen Microsensor

Biochemical sensors for continuous monitoring require dependable periodic self diagnosis with acceptable simplicity to check its functionality during operation. An in-situ self-diagnostic technique for a dissolved oxygen microsensor is proposed in an effort to devise an intelligent microsensor system with an integrated electrochemical actuation electrode. With a built-in platinum microelectrode that surrounds the microsensor, two kinds of microenvironments, called the oxygen-saturated or oxygen-depleted phases, can be created by water electrolysis, depending on the polarity. The functionality of the microsensor can be checked during these microenvironment phases. The polarographic oxygen microsensor is fabricated on a flexible polyimide substrate (Kapton) and the feasibility of the proposed concept is demonstrated in a physiological solution. The sensor responds properly during the oxygen-generating and oxygen-depleting phases. The use of these microenvironments for in-situ self-calibration is discussed to achieve functional integration, as well as structural integration, of the microsensor system