Discussions about the achievements and limitations of the various approaches to the development of intelligent systems can have an essential impact on empirically based research, and with that also on the future development of computer technologies. However, such discussions are often based on vague concepts and assumptions. In this context, we claim that the proposed `three-world ontology'' offers the most appropriate conceptual framework in which the basic problems concerned with cognition and computation can be suitably expressed and discussed, although the (...) solutions of some of these problems seem to lie beyond the horizon of our current understanding. We stress the necessity to differentiate between authentic and functional cognitive abilities; although computation is not a plausible way towards authentic intelligence, we claim that computational systems do offer virtually unlimited possibilities to replicate and surpass human cognitive abilities on the functional level. (shrink)

I survey recent work on mental causation. The discussion is conducted under the twin presumptions that mental states, including especially what subjects believe and desire, causally explain what subjects do, and that the physical sciences can in principle give a complete explanation for each and every bodily movement. I start with sceptical discussions of various views that hold that, in some strong sense, the causal explanations offered by psychology are autonomous with respect to those offered by the physical sciences. I (...) then proceed to views that see the problem of mental causation as that of identifying where in the physical story about us and our world lie the parts that in effect tell us abut mental causation - the kind of position that is pretty much standard in the cognitive science community - and consider issues raised by various forms of functionalism and externalism. The general thrust of my discussion is sympathetic to the story about mental causation suggested by those type-type versions of the mind-brain identity theory that allow for the possiblity of multiple realisability. I include a brief discussion of how a map-system account of belief, by contrast with a language of thought one, should understand explanations of behaviour in terms of what a subject believes. (shrink)

We try to show that there is no difference in principle between communicating a piece of information to a human and to a machine. The argumentation depends on the following theses: Communicating is transfer of information; information has propositional form; propositional form can be modelled as categorization; categorisation can be modelled in a machine; a suitably equipped machine can grasp propositional content designed for human communication. What I suggest is that the discussion should focus on the truth and precise meaning (...) of these statements. However, in case these statements are true it follows that: For any act of communication that successfully transfers a piece of information to a human, that act could also transfer that piece of information to a machine. (shrink)