Summary Cognitive Science, Third Edition, Chapters 2 - 6

2.​ ​The​ ​Philosophical​ ​Approach

Philosophy:​​ ​The​ ​search​ ​for​ ​wisdom​ ​and​ ​knowledge.​ ​Is​ ​theoretical,​ ​by​ ​“defining​ ​problems,
criticizing​ ​models,​ ​and​ ​suggesting​ ​areas​ ​for​ ​future​ ​research”.​ ​It​ ​gives​ ​key​ ​insights​ ​into​ ​the
relationships​ ​between​ ​different​ ​areas​ ​of​ ​study​ ​and,​ ​therefore,​ ​plays​ ​a​ ​very​ ​important​ ​role​ ​in
the​ ​interdisciplinary​ ​endeavor​ ​of​ ​cognitive​ ​science.
● Metaphysics:​ ​Examines​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​reality,​ ​mind-body​ ​problem
● Epistemology:​ ​Study​ ​of​ ​knowledge.​ ​What​ ​is​ ​knowledge,​ ​how​ ​do​ ​we​ ​acquire​ ​it?

The​ ​mind-body​ ​problem:​ ​what​ ​is​ ​mind?
How​ ​psychological​ ​or​ ​mental​ ​properties​ ​are​ ​related​ ​to​ ​physical​ ​properties.
● Is​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​physical​ ​or​ ​something​ ​else?
● What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​causal​ ​relation​ ​between​ ​them?

Monism:​​ ​There’s​ ​only​ ​one​ ​kind​ ​of​ ​state​ ​or​ ​substance​ ​in​ ​the​ ​universe.
​ ​ ​ ​ ​Aristotle:​​ ​difference​ ​between​ ​mind​ ​and​ ​body​ ​as​ ​the​ ​difference​ ​between​ ​form​ ​and​ ​matter
Dualism:​​ ​Both​ ​mental​ ​and​ ​physical​ ​substances​ ​are​ ​possible.
​ ​ ​ ​ ​Plato:​ ​Mind​ ​and​ ​body​ ​exist​ ​in​ ​different​ ​worlds.​ ​Knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​exists​ ​in​ ​an​ ​ideal
world​ ​of​ ​forms​ ​(perfect).​ ​The​ ​body​ ​resides​ ​in​ ​a​ ​world​ ​that​ ​is​ ​material​ ​(imperfect).
Philosophical​ ​behaviorism:​​ ​Mental​ ​states​ ​are​ ​dispositions​ ​or​ ​tendencies​ ​to​ ​behave​ ​in
certain​ ​ways​ ​under​ ​certain​ ​circumstances.

Monism:
● Idealism:​​ ​The​ ​universe​ ​is​ ​mental.​ ​“Brain​ ​in​ ​a​ ​vat​ ​argument”.​ ​We​ ​could​ ​never​ ​get
outside​ ​our​ ​own​ ​conscious​ ​experience​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​what​ ​reality​ ​is​ ​really​ ​like.
● Physicalism​ ​(materialism):​​ ​The​ ​universe​ ​is​ ​physical.​ ​Democritus:​ ​all​ ​things​ ​were
composed​ ​of​ ​atoms,​ ​the​ ​attributes​ ​and​ ​behaviors​ ​of​ ​the​ ​atoms​ ​can​ ​explain​ ​the
differences​ ​between​ ​things.​ ​The​ ​operations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​are​ ​seen​ ​here​ ​simply​ ​as​ ​the
operations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brain.​ ​Identity​ ​theory:​​ ​The​ ​mind​ ​is​ ​the​ ​brain.​ ​Mental​ ​states​ ​are
physical​ ​states​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brain.
○ Eliminativism:​​ ​Abandon​ ​our​ ​mental​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​rely​ ​solely​ ​on​ ​the​ ​scientific
terminology.​ ​Don’t​ ​believe​ ​in​ ​mental​ ​states​ ​at​ ​all.​ ​Only​ ​physical​ ​brain​ ​states
are​ ​acknowledged​ ​as​ ​existing.
○ Folk​ ​psychology:​​ ​Commonsense​ ​or​ ​intuitive​ ​reasoning.​ ​Helps​ ​us​ ​understand
and​ ​predict​ ​the​ ​behavior​ ​of​ ​people​ ​around​ ​us.​ ​Churchland​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​it​ ​has
outlived​ ​its​ ​usefulness​ ​and​ ​that​ ​we​ ​should​ ​supplant​ ​it​ ​with​ ​neuroscience.

Pros:
● Simpler​ ​than​ ​dualist​ ​accounts:​ ​Occam’s​ ​razor;​ ​all​ ​things​ ​being​ ​equal,​ ​the​ ​simplest
explanation​ ​is​ ​usually​ ​the​ ​correct​ ​one.

Cons:
● The​ ​world​ ​is​ ​physical,​ ​but​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​physical​ ​explanation​ ​for​ ​many​ ​phenomena.
Sometimes​ ​it’s​ ​better​ ​to​ ​explain​ ​using​ ​mental​ ​terms.
● Multiple​ ​realization​ ​(argument​ ​against​ ​identity​ ​theory):​ ​You​ ​and​ ​I​ ​may​ ​both​ ​feel​ ​pain
when​ ​there’s​ ​activity​ ​in​ ​c-fibers,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​particular​ ​pattern​ ​of​ ​activity​ ​in​ ​those​ ​fibers

, and​ ​in​ ​other​ ​areas​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brain​ ​could​ ​produce​ ​radically​ ​different​ ​mental​ ​perceptions​ ​of
pain​ ​in​ ​each​ ​of​ ​us.​ ​Identity​ ​theory​ ​must​ ​account​ ​for​ ​all​ ​the​ ​subtle​ ​mental​ ​differences
that​ ​can​ ​exist​ ​between​ ​individuals.

Dualism​:
● Classical​ ​dualism:​​ ​Descartes​:​ ​one-way​ ​causal​ ​link,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​controlling​ ​the
body.​ ​He​ ​thought​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​exerted​ ​its​ ​control​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​through​ ​the​ ​pineal​ ​gland
(one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​anatomical​ ​structures​ ​not​ ​duplicated​ ​on​ ​either​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brain).​ ​Like​ ​a
puppet​ ​and​ ​puppet​ ​master.
● Substance​ ​dualism:​​ ​Mind​ ​and​ ​body​ ​are​ ​composed​ ​of​ ​completely​ ​different
substances;​ ​mental​ ​and​ ​physical​ ​substances​ ​(Descartes’​ ​classical​ ​dualism​ ​is
substance​ ​dualism).
● Pro:
○ Minds​ ​can​ ​do​ ​X.​ ​No​ ​physical​ ​object​ ​can​ ​do​ ​X.​ ​Therefore,​ ​minds​ ​are​ ​not
physical​ ​objects.
​ ​ ​ ​Cons:
○ If​ ​mind​ ​and​ ​body​ ​are​ ​of​ ​two​ ​different​ ​substances,​ ​then​ ​they​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​able
to​ ​causally​ ​interact.​ ​Pineal​ ​gland​ ​is​ ​where,​ ​not​ ​how​ ​they​ ​interact.
○ If​ ​mental​ ​states​ ​can​ ​be​ ​explained​ ​by​ ​biology​ ​terms​ ​there’s​ ​no​ ​need​ ​for​ ​a​ ​non
physical​ ​explanation
○ Does​ ​not​ ​give​ ​us​ ​an​ ​alternate​ ​explanation.​ ​What​ ​are​ ​mental​ ​things​ ​made​ ​of?
etc
● Property​ ​dualism:​​ ​The​ ​mind​ ​and​ ​body​ ​can​ ​be​ ​of​ ​the​ ​same​ ​stuff,​ ​but​ ​have​ ​different
properties​ ​(characteristics/features).
● Con:​​ ​Still​ ​fails​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​an​ ​explanation​ ​for​ ​mental​ ​states.

Cons:
● Ryle​:​ ​The​ ​mind​ ​is​ ​not​ ​any​ ​particular​ ​component​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brain​ ​but,​ ​rather,​ ​all​ ​the​ ​parts
working​ ​together​ ​as​ ​a​ ​coordinated,​ ​organized​ ​whole.
● Clark​:​ ​Dualism​ ​is​ ​uninformative​ ​and​ ​tells​ ​us​ ​what​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​isn’t​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​what​ ​it​ ​is.
● It​ ​postulates​ ​2​ ​worlds​ ​that​ ​must​ ​be​ ​coordinated.​ ​An​ ​explanation​ ​that​ ​does​ ​not​ ​violate
the​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​Occam’s​ ​razor​ ​would​ ​involve​ ​a​ ​single​ ​type​ ​of​ ​world,​ ​not​ ​requiring
coordination.
● The​ ​mental​ ​is​ ​integrated​ ​with​ ​the​ ​physical,​ ​the​ ​mind​ ​depends​ ​on​ ​the​ ​brain.
● Capacities​ ​once​ ​thought​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​exclusive​ ​domain​ ​of​ ​humans​ ​are​ ​now​ ​becoming
better​ ​understood​ ​computationally

Functionalism
Physical​ ​kinds​​ ​of​ ​things:​ ​identified​ ​by​ ​their​ ​material​ ​composition​ ​only
Functional​ ​kinds:​​ ​distinguished​ ​by​ ​their​ ​actions​ ​or​ ​tendencies
Mental​ ​states​ ​are​ ​not​ ​just​ ​physical​ ​states,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​the​ ​functioning​ ​or​ ​operation​ ​of​ ​those
physical​ ​states.​ ​A​ ​mind​ ​could​ ​conceivably​ ​be​ ​implemented​ ​in​ ​any​ ​physical​ ​system​ ​capable​ ​of
supporting​ ​the​ ​appropriate​ ​computation.
Significant​ ​implications​ ​(​Garfield​):​ ​The​ ​same​ ​mental​ ​state​ ​could​ ​be​ ​realized​ ​in​ ​quite​ ​different
ways​ ​in​ ​two​ ​separate​ ​physical​ ​systems​ ​(multiple​ ​realization​ ​theory).

, ● Conservative:​ ​Advocate​ ​direct​ ​connections​ ​between​ ​physical​ ​and​ ​computational
states
● Liberal:​ ​Emphasize​ ​computation​ ​over​ ​physicality;​ ​for​ ​both​ ​computers​ ​and​ ​thinking
organisms,​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​possible​ ​computational​ ​states​ ​always​ ​exceeds​ ​the​ ​number
of​ ​physical​ ​states.​ ​And​ ​psychological​ ​states​ ​are​ ​defined​ ​more​ ​by​ ​their​ ​relations​ ​to
other​ ​such​ ​states​ ​and​ ​to​ ​behaviors​ ​than​ ​by​ ​their​ ​relations​ ​to​ ​physical​ ​states.

Cons:
● Although​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​that​ ​minds​ ​can​ ​exist​ ​in​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​brains,​ ​this​ ​does​ ​not
make​ ​it​ ​plausible
● It​ ​cannot​ ​count​ ​for​ ​the​ ​felt​ ​or​ ​experienced​ ​character​ ​of​ ​mental​ ​states​ ​(q ​ ualia​)
● 2​ ​Individuals​ ​having​ ​the​ ​same​ ​conscious​ ​experience​ ​often​ ​do​ ​not​ ​experience​ ​it
subjectively​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​way,​ ​even​ ​though​ ​the​ ​functional​ ​operations​ ​are
approximately​ ​equivalent

Knowledge​ ​acquisition​ ​problem
How​ ​do​ ​we​ ​acquire​ ​knowledge?​ ​—>​ ​nature-nurture​ ​debate
(biologically/genetically-experience/interaction)
● Nativism:​​ ​A​ ​significant​ ​body​ ​of​ ​knowledge​ ​is​ ​note​ ​or​ ​“built​ ​into”​ ​an​ ​organism​ ​(P
​ lato​)
● Rationalism:​​ ​(​Descartes​)​ ​Also​ ​believe​ ​in​ ​the​ ​existence​ ​of​ ​innate​ ​ideas,​ ​they
additionally​ ​emphasize​ ​the​ ​existence​ ​of​ ​innate​ ​reasoning​ ​powers.​ ​We​ ​can​ ​use​ ​a​ ​priori
powers​ ​to​ ​form​ ​new​ ​ideas​ ​that​ ​are​ ​not​ ​given​ ​to​ ​us​ ​innately.
● Empiricism:​​ ​Knowledge​ ​acquired​ ​through​ ​experience.​ ​(​Locke​)​ ​Tabula​ ​Rasa​ ​(born​ ​as
a​ ​‘blank​ ​slate’).
○ Simple​ ​ideas:​ ​Derived​ ​through​ ​sensory​ ​input​ ​or​ ​simple​ ​processes​ ​of​ ​reflexion
(‘red’,​ ​’sweet')
○ Complex​ ​ideas:​ ​Formed​ ​from​ ​the​ ​active​ ​mental​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​simple​ ​ideas
(‘cherry’)
All​ ​infants​ ​demonstrate​ ​a​ ​set​ ​of​ ​reflexes​​ ​and​ ​they​ ​have​ ​smell​ ​preference​ ​(survival​ ​value)​ ​—>
Innate​ ​knowledge

The​ ​mystery​ ​of​ ​consciousness
Consciousness​​ ​has​ ​no​ ​single​ ​agreed-on​ ​definition.​ ​In​ ​its​ ​broadest​ ​sense:​ ​the​ ​subjective
quality​ ​of​ ​experience​ ​(​Chalmers​).​ ​It​ ​may​ ​be​ ​thought​ ​of​ ​as​ ​our​ ​individual​ ​subjective
awareness​ ​of​ ​mental​ ​states​ ​(sensation,​ ​perception​ ​etc).
Is​ ​it​ ​unitary​ ​(one​ ​recognizes​ ​himself​ ​or​ ​herself​ ​to​ ​be​ ​one​ ​person,​ ​experiencing​ ​things​ ​in​ ​the
present​ ​moment)​ ​or​ ​divided?​ ​Subjectively​ ​it​ ​seems​ ​to​ ​be​ ​unitary,​ ​but​ ​when​ ​one​ ​studies​ ​the
brain​ ​there’s​ ​no​ ​single​ ​place​ ​or​ ​even​ ​time​ ​where​ ​consciousness​ ​seems​ ​to​ ​happen.​ ​The​ ​brain
in​ ​action​ ​is​ ​a​ ​case​ ​of​ ​activity​ ​going​ ​on​ ​all​ ​over​ ​the​ ​place.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​brain​ ​may​ ​even​ ​be
processing​ ​different​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​a​ ​single​ ​experience​ ​at​ ​different​ ​times.
● Phenomenal​ ​concept​ ​of​ ​mind:​​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​mind​ ​as​ ​a​ ​conscious​ ​experience.​ ​Mental
states​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​explained​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​how​ ​they​ ​feel.
● Psychological​ ​concept​ ​of​ ​mind:​​ ​Sees​ ​mental​ ​states​ ​only​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​how​ ​they
cause​ ​and​ ​explain​ ​behavior.​ ​Mind​ ​is​ ​characterized​ ​by​ ​what​ ​it​ ​does.