Cognitive Science: What Is It and Its Philosophical Roots

Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science.

Table Of Contents

What is cognitive science?

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field that studies the human mind (including what the mind is, how it works, and what its role is). Cognitive science differs from other fields that study the human mind because it has a more specific theoretical framework. This framework revolves around the Information Processing Theory, which asserts that the mind is an information processor that represents and performs computations on this represented information. Another defining feature of cognitive science is its unique intersection with multiple disciplines, as researchers of various fields collaborate to study the mind.

What are symbolic representations?

A symbolic representation is a method of representing something, typically a type of real-world object or idea, using a symbol. The three components of symbolic representations are symbols, interpretants, and referents. Symbols signify interpretants. Interpretants refer to the mental interpretations that are triggered by encountering a symbol. A referent refers to the thing in the real world that the symbol stands for. In the case of a fire, the symbol would be the fire alarm, which signifies that a fire is present. The individual’s mental understanding of the concept of a fire, signified by the fire alarm, would be the interpretant. The referent would be the actual fire taking place in the real world. Since the fire alarm (the symbol) represents the fire (the referent), the individual would realize that a fire is taking place and presumably evacuate the premises.

What are the four types of representation?

The four types of representation are concepts, propositions, rules, and analogies. Concepts are generic ideas generalized from particular instances, meaning that they represent a group of entities sharing similar features. For example, even though many types of trees exist, the concept of trees amalgamates various species of trees based on shared features. Secondly, propositions are statements that express relationships between concepts. For instance, the proposition “all children like colors” expresses a relationship between the concepts “children” and “colors.” Rules are computational processes that can be applied to propositions to determine their validity. For example, the proposition “all dogs eat fruits” can be argued using syllogism (a type of rule) with the premises “all mammals eat fruits” and “all dogs are mammals.” However, it is not true that all mammals eat fruits, demonstrating how the proposition can be false if either of the premises is not completely true. Lastly, analogies are considered as a form of reasoning that enables the generalization of knowledge, which involves applying one’s familiarity of an old situation to a new situation. For example, learning how to ride a bicycle is similar to learning how to swim, since you need to maintain balance in both activities. Therefore, if an individual knows how to ride a bicycle but does not know how to swim, this individual can apply their knowledge and familiarity of how to balance on a bicycle when learning how to swim (and vice versa).

What are the different levels of information processing in Marr’s tri-level hypothesis?

Marr’s tri-level hypothesis consists of three levels: the computational, algorithmic, and implementational levels. The computational level is the most abstract level that focuses on specifying a problem and determining its purpose. For instance, when a dog is barking, the problem at the computational level is the dog barking and an individual can interpret the purpose of the barks as a means of communicating, warning, etc. Secondly, the algorithmic level is the formal procedure that manipulates informational representation. For example, when light (the informational representation in this instance) enters the eye, the algorithmic level focuses on the sequence of steps that occur when light enters the eye. Lastly, the implementational level focuses on what the informational processor is made of. In the context of a computer, for example, the implementational level focuses on the physical parts of a computer that make up its informational processor (such as the CPU, the brains of the computer).

What is a symbolic system? What is the physical symbol system hypothesis (PSSH)?

A symbolic system is a collection of symbols that are combined into expressions and manipulated using processes, providing a framework of representing and manipulating information. The physical symbol system hypothesis (PSSH) is a hypothesis that states that symbolic systems, such as the human mind and machines, are intelligent. An objection to this hypothesis is that symbols used by computing machines lack innate meaning. Since humans and animals can perceive things and act on them, the symbols that humans and animals use are argued as meaningful. However, because computing machines without sensors and effectors do not have a connection with the environment as humans do, it is argued that these machines cannot be considered intelligent and that the symbols they use have no meaning (despite the fact that they are symbolic systems). Personally, I disagree with the PSSH because I believe that computing machines lack semantic quality, as a result of their lack of sensory perception and consciousness. I believe that computers simulate intelligence as opposed to truly being intelligent. It might be possible for computing machines to possess intelligence in the future with the advancement of AI, though.

What is monism, dualism, and functionalism?

Monism is the view that there is only one kind of substance in the universe. According to monism, the mind and the brain must be made of the same substance. Idealism and physicalism are two types of monism. According to idealism, the only substance that exists is immaterial and the material world is an illusion. Physicalism is the view that the only substance that exists is material and that the mind is nothing more than a physical operation of the brain. Conversely, dualism is the view that there are both material and immaterial substances in the universe. Substance dualism and property dualism are two types of dualism. Substance dualism involves the ideas that the mind and the body are completely different substances and that only our minds affect our bodies through the pineal gland. Property dualism is the view that the mind and the body is made of the same substance even though they have different features. Mental states are non-physical properties of the brain according to property dualism. Plato was a dualist who believed that the mind exists in an ideal world of forms and that the body exists in an imperfect material world. Additionally, functionalism involves the ideas that mental states are not only physical states but also the functioning or operation of those physical states. In functionalism, mental states reflect the process that arises from physical states. An implication of functionalism is the principle of multiple realizability, which states that a mind can be implemented in any physical system that is capable of supporting the appropriate computations that our minds perform. This principle implies that the mind is not limited to specific physical form. In my opinion, physicalism is the most plausible because there has been scientific evidence of how damage to the brain can lead to mental disruption, suggesting that the mind is a physical operation of the brain. In my opinion, substance dualism is the least plausible because, if the mind and the body were made of different substances, it would presumably be impossible for them to interact with each other through the pineal gland

What are the two sides of the knowledge-acquisition debate?

The two main sides of the knowledge-acquisition debate are the nature and nurture perspectives. The nature perspective argues that we acquire knowledge primarily through genetically or biologically determined factors. Two popular naturalistic views of knowledge-acquirement are Nativism and Rationalism. Nativism holds that knowledge is innate and is a matter of remembering what is already known and Rationalism holds that humans have innate reasoning powers that allow us to acquire knowledge. On the other hand, the nurture perspective argues that we acquire knowledge primarily through experience and interaction with the environment. Empiricism holds that humans are not born with innate knowledge or reasoning powers; rather, the philosophy argues that humans learn through experience and observation. From my perspective, we are born with innate reasoning powers that help us acquire knowledge. However, I do not believe that we are born with innate knowledge

What is the reductionist view of the mind? What is the idea of the mind as an emergent property?

The reductionist view of the mind suggests that the mind is a mental phenomenon that can be understood by breaking the mind down into smaller components, such as understanding how neurons are connected and activated. On the other hand, the idea of the mind as an emergent property suggests that the mind is an emergent property of its parts, and thus cannot be understood by reducing it to its smaller components. In this view, the combination of the mind’s smaller components results in a certain function or property that the mind’s parts alone do not have. Personally, the reductionist view of the mind is more plausible because I do not believe that any new function arises from the combination of the mind’s individual parts. From my perspective, the individual functions of the mind’s smaller components join together to work as a working mind as a whole.

Does AI have consciousness?

Arguments for the view that AI can have consciousness includes the idea that consciousness is not a physical process: consciousness is only possible in an organic brain, and humans will never be able to duplicate consciousness because of its complexity. Similarly, the Chinese room argument suggests that a machine could never understand the information it processes because it is following a prescribed set of rules. Arguments against the view that AI can gain consciousness includes the ideas that although human consciousness does not currently have a non-physical explanation, it may have a scientific explanation in the future as humans have mechanically reproduced small-scale biochemical processes with non-organic materials, and it may be possible to create a simpler form of consciousness physically. Objections to the Chinese room scenario include the idea that humans also truly never understand things (like computing machines) and simply provide the best answer when asked, and that a person with no understanding of Chinese (like computing machines) may eventually achieve some understanding of Chinese after interacting with the language. In my opinion, AI cannot have consciousness because consciousness (even a simpler form of consciousness) is too complicated to replicate non-biologically. Since AI originated from physical machinery, I believe it is impossible to replicate the subjective experiences found in biological beings on a computer made of inorganic materials.