8,719 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Fewer epistemological challenges for connectionism
Seventeen years ago, John McCarthy wrote the note Epistemological challenges for connectionism as a response to Paul Smolensky’s paper 'On the proper treatment of connectionism'. I will discuss the extent to which the four key challenges put forward by McCarthy have been solved, and what are the new challenges ahead. I argue that there are fewer epistemological challenges for connectionism, but progress has been slow. Nevertheless, there is now strong indication that neural-symbolic integration can provide effective systems of expressive reasoning and robust learning due to the recent developments in the field
Connectionism, Analogicity and Mental Content
In Connectionism and the Philosophy of Psychology, Horgan and Tienson (1996) argue that cognitive
processes, pace classicism, are not governed by exceptionless, representation-level rules; they
are instead the work of defeasible cognitive tendencies subserved by the non-linear dynamics of
the brains neural networks. Many theorists are sympathetic with the dynamical characterisation
of connectionism and the general (re)conception of cognition that it affords. But in all the
excitement surrounding the connectionist revolution in cognitive science, it has largely gone
unnoticed that connectionism adds to the traditional focus on computational processes, a new
focus one on the vehicles of mental representation, on the entities that carry content through the
mind. Indeed, if Horgan and Tiensons dynamical characterisation of connectionism is on the
right track, then so intimate is the relationship between computational processes and
representational vehicles, that connectionist cognitive science is committed to a resemblance
theory of mental content
A Connectionist Theory of Phenomenal Experience
When cognitive scientists apply computational theory to the problem of phenomenal consciousness, as
many of them have been doing recently, there are two fundamentally distinct approaches available. Either
consciousness is to be explained in terms of the nature of the representational vehicles the brain deploys; or
it is to be explained in terms of the computational processes defined over these vehicles. We call versions of
these two approaches vehicle and process theories of consciousness, respectively. However, while there may
be space for vehicle theories of consciousness in cognitive science, they are relatively rare. This is because
of the influence exerted, on the one hand, by a large body of research which purports to show that the
explicit representation of information in the brain and conscious experience are dissociable, and on the
other, by the classical computational theory of mind – the theory that takes human cognition to be a species
of symbol manipulation. But two recent developments in cognitive science combine to suggest that a
reappraisal of this situation is in order. First, a number of theorists have recently been highly critical of the
experimental methodologies employed in the dissociation studies – so critical, in fact, it’s no longer
reasonable to assume that the dissociability of conscious experience and explicit representation has been
adequately demonstrated. Second, classicism, as a theory of human cognition, is no longer as dominant in
cognitive science as it once was. It now has a lively competitor in the form of connectionism; and
connectionism, unlike classicism, does have the computational resources to support a robust vehicle theory
of consciousness. In this paper we develop and defend this connectionist vehicle theory of consciousness. It
takes the form of the following simple empirical hypothesis: phenomenal experience consists in the explicit
representation of information in neurally realized PDP networks. This hypothesis leads us to re-assess some
common wisdom about consciousness, but, we will argue, in fruitful and ultimately plausible ways
A Defence of Cartesian Materialism
One of the principal tasks Dennett sets himself in "Consciousness Explained" is to demolish the Cartesian theatre model of phenomenal consciousness, which in its contemporary garb takes the form of Cartesian materialism: the idea that conscious experience is a process of presentation realized in the physical materials of the brain. The now standard response to Dennett is that, in focusing on Cartesian materialism, he attacks an impossibly naive account of consciousness held by no one currently working in cognitive science or the philosophy of mind. Our response is quite different. We believe that, once properly formulated, Cartesian materialism is no straw man. Rather, it is an attractive hypothesis about the relationship between the computational architecture of the brain and phenomenal consciousness, and hence one that is worthy of further exploration. Consequently, our primary aim in this paper is to defend Cartesian materialism from Dennett's assault. We do this by showing that Dennett's argument against this position is founded on an implicit assumption (about the relationship between phenomenal experience and information coding in the brain), which while valid in the context of classical cognitive science, is not forced on connectionism
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
The Mind: Embodied, Embedded, but not Extended
This commentry focuses on the one major ecumenical theme propounded in Andy Clark's Being There that I find
difficult to accept; this is Clarks advocacy, especially in the third and final part of the book, of
the extended nature of the embedded, embodied mind
Recommended from our members
Neurons and symbols: a manifesto
We discuss the purpose of neural-symbolic integration including its principles, mechanisms and applications. We outline a cognitive computational model for neural-symbolic integration, position the model in the broader context of multi-agent systems, machine learning and automated reasoning, and list some of the challenges for the area of
neural-symbolic computation to achieve the promise of effective integration of robust learning and expressive reasoning under uncertainty
- …