Zenon Pylyshyn, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science. What is Cognitive Science?. What’s in the mind that we may know it?. http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn.html. Cognitive science is a delicate mixture of the obvious and the incredible. Granny was almost right:
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
What’s in the mind that we may know it?
Granny was almost right:
Behavior really is governed by what we know and what we want (together with the mechanisms for representing and for drawing inferences from these)
What representations are aboutis what matters
But how can the fact that a belief is about some particular thing have a lawful, observable consequence?
e.g. How can the presence of “holy grail” in a belief determine behavior when the holy grail does not exist?
In a natural science if “X causes Y” then X must exist and be causally connected to Y!
It’s even worse than that; even when X exists, it is not X’s physical properties that are relevant!
e.g., the North Star & navigation
What determines our actions is what our mental states are about, but aboutness is not a category of natural science.
That is why Brentano concluded that psychology was beyond the grasp of natural science.
Along comes The computational theory of mind
“the only straw afloat”
(1) Married(John, Mary)orMarried(John, Susan)
and the equation or “statement”,
from these two statements you can conclude,
(3) Married(John, Mary)
But notice that (3) follows from (1) and (2) regardless of what is in the parts of the equation not occupied by the terms or or not so that you could write down the equations without mentioning marriage or John or Mary or, for that matter, anything having to do with the world. Try replacing these expressions with the meaningless letters P and Q. The inference still holds:
How do we avoid dualism?
But they are not causally connected to what they represent!
Intelligent systems are organized at three (or more) distinct levels:
The physical or biological level
The symbolic or syntactic level
The knowledge or semantic level
This means that different regularities may require appeal to different levels
Index of process
If all you have is observed behavior, how can you go beyond I-O mimicry?
“Red light and yellow light mix to produce orange light”
This remains true for any way of getting red light and yellow light:
e.g. yellow may be light of 580 nanometer wavelength, or it may be a mixture of light of 530 nm and 650 nm wavelengths.
So long as one light looks yellow and the other looks red the “law” will hold.
(2) Target probe = C (or R)
Is this model weakly- or strongly-equivalent to a person?
Is this the way people do it? How do you know?
Because in this case time should not be one of the computed outputs, but a measure of how many steps it took.
The same is true of intermediate states(e.g., evidence includes what subjects say, error rates, eye tracking, judgmentsabout the output, and so on.)
Reaction time is one of the main sources of evidence in cog sci.
Question: Is time always a valid index of processing complexity?
What do they tell us about how people do it? Is this Input-Output equivalent or is it strongly equivalent to human performance?