Je soutiens qu’accepter les explications réalistes intentionnelles du comportement cognitif conduit inévitablement à endosser l’hypothèse du langage de la pensée, et que cette position théorique est, par conséquent, largement répandue chez les philosophes de l’esprit. Au cours de la discussion, je propose un exposé succinct et précis de cette hypothèse et j’analyse une série d’exemples représentatifs de l’argumentation pro-LOT. Après avoir examiné deux cas de résistance à ce type de raisonnement, je conclus en montrant que le soutien accordé à la (...) LOT est empiriquement substantiel, en dépit de la flexibilité et du caractère incomplet de cette hypothèse. (shrink)

This paper seeks to understand machine cognition. The nature of machine cognition has been shrouded in incomprehensibility. We have often encountered familiar arguments in cognitive science that human cognition is still faintly understood. This paper will argue that machine cognition is far less understood than even human cognition despite the fact that a lot about computer architecture and computational operations is known. Even if there have been putative claims about the transparency of the notion of machine computations, these claims do (...) not hold out in unraveling machine cognition, let alone machine consciousness (if there is any such thing). The nature and form of machine cognition remains further confused also because of attempts to explain human cognition in terms of computation and to model/simulate (aspects of) human cognitive processing in machines. Given that these problems in characterizing machine cognition persist, a view of machine cognition that aims to avoid these problems is outlined. The argument that is advanced is that something becomes a computation in machines only when a human interprets it, which is a kind of semiotic causation. From this it follows that a computing machine is not engaged in a computation unless a human interprets what it is doing; instead, it is engaged in machine cognition, which is defined as a member or subset of the set of all possible mappings of inputs to outputs. The human interpretation, which is a semiotic process, gives meaning to what a machine does, and then what it does becomes a computation. (shrink)

In the literature on dynamical models in cognitive science, two issues have recently caused controversy. First, what is the relation between dynamical and mechanistic models? I will argue that dynamical models can be upgraded to be mechanistic as well, and that there are mechanistic and non-mechanistic dynamical models. Second, there is the issue of explanatory power. Since it is uncontested the mechanistic models can explain, I will focus on the non-mechanistic variety of dynamical models. It is often claimed by proponents (...) of mechanistic explanations that such models do not really explain cognitive phenomena . I will argue against this view. Although I agree that the three arguments usually offered to vindicate the explanatory power of non-mechanistic dynamical models are not enough, I consider a fourth argument, namely that such models provide understanding. The Voss strong anticipation model is used to illustrate this. (shrink)

After more than 60 years, Shannon’s research continues to raise fundamental questions, such as the one formulated by R. Luce, which is still unanswered: “Why is information theory not very applicable to psychological problems, despite apparent similarities of concepts?” On this topic, S. Pinker, one of the foremost defenders of the widespread computational theory of mind, has argued that thought is simply a type of computation, and that the gap between human cognition and computational models may be illusory. In this (...) context, in his latest book, titled Thinking Fast and Slow, D. Kahneman provides further theoretical interpretation by differentiating the two assumed systems of the cognitive functioning of the human mind. He calls them intuition (system 1) determined to be an associative (automatic, fast and perceptual) machine, and reasoning (system 2) required to be voluntary and to operate logical-deductively. In this paper, we propose a mathematical approach inspired by Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory for investigating, from the constructivist perspective, information processing in the working memory of cognizers. Specifically, a thought experiment is performed utilizing the mind of a dual-natured creature known as Maxwell’s demon: a tiny “man–machine” solely equipped with the characteristics of system 1, which prevents it from reasoning. The calculation presented here shows that the Ausubelian learning schema, when inserted into the creature’s memory, leads to a Shannon-Hartley-like model that, in turn, converges exactly to the fundamental thermodynamic principle of computation, known as the Landauer limit. This result indicates that when the system 2 is shut down, both an intelligent being, as well as a binary machine, incur the same minimum energy cost per unit of information (knowledge) processed (acquired), which mathematically shows the computational attribute of the system 1, as Kahneman theorized. This finding links information theory to human psychological features and opens the possibility to experimentally test the computational theory of mind by means of Landauer’s energy cost, which can pave a way toward the conception of a multi-bit reasoning machine. (shrink)

Even though it has been argued that scientific cognition is distributed, there is no consensus on the exact nature of distributed cognition. This paper aims to characterize distributed cognition as appropriate for philosophical studies of science. I first classify competing characterizations into three types: the property approach, the task approach, and the system approach. It turns out that the property approach and the task approach are subject to criticism. I then argue that the most preferable way to understand distributed cognition (...) in science is provided by the system approach that takes a distributed-cognitive system as the unit of analysis. I clarify this position by considering possible objections and replies. (shrink)

In this article, we propose an initial formal model of computationalism based on mathematical relations between cognition and computation. More specifically, based on a set of cognitive constituents as a domain, and a set of computational implementations as a range, we define two relations of transformation over these sets. Moreover, we define the principles of implementability, describability, and phenomena correspondence, and we conjecture that full computationalism does not hold since these principles are not fulfilled. Particularly, many cognitively-tied phenomena fail to (...) respect the describability principle which is necessary for representing a cognitive state by a computational state. (shrink)