What might dynamical intentionality be, if not computation?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

(1) Van Gelder's concession that the dynamical hypothesis is not in opposition to computation in general does not agree well with his anticomputational stance. (2) There are problems with the claim that dynamic systems allow for nonrepresentational aspects of computation in a way in which digital computation cannot. (3) There are two senses of the “cognition is computation” claim and van Gelder argues against only one of them. (4) Dynamical systems as characterized in the target article share problems of universal realizability with formal notions of computation, but differ in that there is no solution available for them. (5) The dynamical hypothesis cannot tell us what cognition is, because instantiating a particular dynamical system is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a cognitive agent.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,991

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
56 (#293,080)

6 months
5 (#710,905)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ron Chrisley
University of Sussex

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references