An analysis of the criteria for evaluating adequate theories of computation

Minds and Machines 18 (3):379-401 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper deals with the question: What are the criteria that an adequate theory of computation has to meet? 1. Smith's answer: it has to meet the empirical criterion (i.e. doing justice to computational practice), the conceptual criterion (i.e. explaining all the underlying concepts) and the cognitive criterion (i.e. providing solid grounds for computationalism). 2. Piccinini's answer: it has to meet the objectivity criterion (i.e. identifying computation as a matter of fact), the explanation criterion (i.e. explaining the computer's behaviour), the right things compute criterion, the miscomputation criterion (i.e. accounting for malfunctions), the taxonomy criterion (i.e. distinguishing between different classes of computers) and the empirical criterion. 3. Von Neumann's answer: it has to meet the precision and reliability of computers criterion, the single error criterion (i.e. addressing the impacts of errors) and the distinction between analogue and digital computers criterion. 4. “Everything” computes answer: it has to meet the implementation theory criterion by properly explaining the notion of implementation. According to computationalists, minds are computational. Before we can judge the plausibility of any particular computationalist theory, we need to understand what notion of computation this theory employs. Although there are extant accounts of computation, any of which may, in principle, serve as a basis for computationalism, it isn’t clear that they’re all equivalent or even adequate as accounts of computation proper. By examining plausible alternatives to Smith’s adequacy criteria, our goal here is to resist his claim that no adequate account of computation proper is possible.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 102,074

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

A Few Problems Concerning the Criterion of Truth.Tao Delin - 1980 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 11 (3):12-17.
A Simplicity Criterion for Physical Computation.Tyler Millhouse - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (1):153-178.
Concrete Digital Computation: What Does it Take for a Physical System to Compute? [REVIEW]Nir Fresco - 2011 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20 (4):513-537.
Quines ontologiekriterium.Peter Hinst - 1983 - Erkenntnis 19 (1-3):193 - 215.
The varieties of computation: A reply.David Chalmers - 2012 - Journal of Cognitive Science 2012 (3):211-248.
Computationalism.Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 1995 - Synthese 105 (3):303-17.
On Ontology.Yvonne Raley - 2004 - Dissertation, City University of New York
Disembodied Survival Again.Richard L. Purtill - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):125 - 132.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
155 (#149,625)

6 months
23 (#135,561)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nir Fresco
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Citations of this work

Concrete Digital Computation: What Does it Take for a Physical System to Compute? [REVIEW]Nir Fresco - 2011 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20 (4):513-537.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Language of Thought.Jerry Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.
The logic of scientific discovery.Karl Raimund Popper - 1934 - New York: Routledge. Edited by Hutchinson Publishing Group.
The Language of Thought.J. A. Fodor - 1978 - Critica 10 (28):140-143.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery.K. Popper - 1959 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):55-57.

View all 20 references / Add more references