Why computation need not be traded only for internal representation

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):80-81 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Although Clark & Thornton's “trading spaces” hypothesis is supposed to require trading internal representation for computation, it is not used consistently in that fashion. Not only do some of the offered computation-saving strategies turn out to be nonrepresentational, others (e.g., cultural artifacts) are external representations. Hence, C&T's hypothesis is consistent with antirepresentationalism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Computation, external factors, and cognitive explanations.Amir Horowitz - 2007 - Philosophical Psychology 20 (1):65-80.
Representations versus regularities: Does computation require representation?Andrew R. Bailey - 1994 - Eidos: The Canadian Graduate Journal of Philosophy 12 (1):47-58.
Transcending Turing computability.B. J. Maclennan - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (1):3-22.
What might dynamical intentionality be, if not computation?Ronald L. Chrisley - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
Representation operators and computation.Brendan Kitts - 1999 - Minds and Machines 9 (2):223-240.
Internal versus external representation.John Dilworth - 2004 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (1):23-36.
A quantum computer only needs one universe.A. M. Steane - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34 (3):469-478.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
42 (#370,011)

6 months
4 (#790,687)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references