Representation and Cognitive Explanation
Representations, it is argued, cannot have effects as representations; yet, even so, they are essential to some explanations in cognitive science. These apparently incompatible claims can be reconciled if we distinguish between explaining cognitive abilities and explaining cognition. Certain cognitive abilities can be seen to require representations for their explanation; but explanations of this type cannot explain how the required representations come to be available, or come to be appropriately connected. A clear understanding of the distinction between explaining cognitive abilities and explaining cognition suggests a certain approach to the latter project, and throws light on some recent controversies.
KeywordsCognitive Ability Abstract State Turing Machine Artificial Life Direct Representation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Brooks, R. (1995) Intelligence without reason. In: Steels, L. & Brooks, R. (eds.) The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied, situated agents. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Dretske, F. (1988) Explaining Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. (1975) The Language of Thoughtt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. (1987) Why there still has to be a language of thought. In: Fodor, J. (ed.) Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In: Pinker, S. & Mehler, J. (eds.) Connections and symbols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gallistel, C. (1990) The Organization of Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Haugeland, J. (1991) Representational genera. In: Ramsey, W., Stich, S. & Rumelhart, D. (eds.) Philosophy and connectionist theory. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Marr, D. (1982) Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Tanaka, J. & Farah, M. (1993) Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 46A: 225–245.Google Scholar