Modelling the noncomputational mind: Reply to Litch

Philosophical Psychology 10 (3):365-371 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I explain why, within the nonclassical framework for cognitive science we describe in the book, cognitive-state transitions can fail to be tractably computable even if they are subserved by a discrete dynamical system whose mathematical-state transitions are tractably computable. I distinguish two ways that cognitive processing might conform to programmable rules in which all operations that apply to representation-level structure are primitive, and two corresponding constraints on models of cognition. Although Litch is correct in maintaining that classical cognitive science is not committed to the first constraint, it is committed to the second. This fact constitutes an illuminating gloss on our claim that one foundational assumption of classicism is that human cognition conforms to programmable, representation-level, rules

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,571

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
27 (#585,141)

6 months
3 (#967,057)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Terry Horgan
University of Arizona

Citations of this work

Troubles for Bayesian Formal Epistemology.Terry Horgan - 2017 - Res Philosophica 94 (2):1-23.
What Does the Frame Problem Tell us About Moral Normativity?Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons - 2009 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):25-51.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references