Talk:Computational theory of mind

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Remove minimal computationalism

I think this section should just be an external link, and I will make it so if there are no objections. The article linked is pretty crappy anyway, making a lot of amateur mistakes in interpreting complex mathematical statements into a philosophy. The idea of minimal computationalism is certainly not a dominant perspective in the field, and doesn't even seem to be a major perspective, so I believe having its own section in lieu of other conjectures shows bias. SamuelRiv 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

The introduction of this article seems accurate to me, however the article is far from comprehensive or encyclopedic, so I've marked it with an expert tag.

Describe the roots of the idea in Hobbes, Descartes, Liebniz, Hume.
Describe the influence of Alan Newell and Herbert Simon's work 1956-1970, and how this inspired the movement.
Done Describe the behaviorist milieu that computationalism was designed to refute.
Done Mention Jerry Fodor's version.
Done Mention Hilary Putnam's version.
Mention Zenon Pylyshyn's version.
Done Mention the popularity of the idea with folks like Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett
Refute the idea: John Searle, Hubert Dreyfus.

Good references:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Computational Theory of Mind
Pinker, Steven How the Mind Works
Haugaland, John Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea", 1986ish,
as well as the (unused) references given for the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Bruno Marchal, because I don't believe that his ideas (although they are fascinating) are a central thread of computational theory of mind. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed GOFAI, because I already mentioned Newell and Simon. They explicitly claimed that their programs were models of human cognition. Other researchers in the "GOFAI" tradition (John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Edward Feigenbaum, etc) did not, and some (McCarthy especially) argued that human cognition and machine cognition were essentially different. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Refutation

I think the above ToDo list is a great start for improving this article. In response to the "who else?" question above I submit Hubert Dreyfus's What Computers Can't Do and the follow-up What Computers Still Can't Do. Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher at UC Berkeley. He also co-wrote Mind Over Machine with his brother Stuart Dreyfus, a professor in industrial engineering also at UC Berkeley. Cheers, Wolfworks (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new material

This page needs a lot of work, and I like fixer-uppers. I can't do the whole to-do list myself, but I can add some meat. Leadwind (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I removed this unsourced section, originally added by User:Peterburton.

Overview

To put substance into this metaphor, at least three components of a 'computable' system model must be specified. Firstly, the data-structure which specifies the least coherent element of 'computation' must be identified. Secondly, the rules of syntax under which these least data-structures may be combined must be specified. Thirdly, some plausible form of brain control over these data-structures must be invoked.

As with all computation, the elegance and flexibility of the final 'program' is largely dependent upon the elegance of the data-structure definitions, around which other issues revolve. In the real brain, presumably the problem is one of finding a data-structure model at the right degree of abstraction such that contact remains with the active neuroscience of the real brain while contact is gained with the process attributes of a mind. The barrier to the latter has been a sufficiently scientific conception of consciousness, surely the precursor concept of any mind, that could even in principle be engineered.

One approach that seeks a resolution of these issues is the Cognitive Process Consciousness model, which seeks to identify human consciousness with a 'computable' and defined system of cognitive processes.
Computational Theory is an advanced subject used extensily in the aritificial intelligence field.

This section does not, it seems to me, present a standard introduction to the idea of computationalism. ----CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better

Thanks to some good work by User:Leadwind, this article is looking better. It still needs work, of course, but at least it mentions the right names and stays on topic. I've removed the "expert" tag for now. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent scholars

I added in the section the professor Bruno marchal who gives an excellent course of theoretical informatics ,in a third cycle of studies for psyhanalysts (an entity called CEPSY) and mathematicians at the Free University of Brussels in Belgium. I have attended this course and it is excellent. Some people said that there is a controversary about his works. I can say I have never seen any reliable argumentation and that such a havoc was only created bu jealous people because if you see all the publications of Bruno Marchal , you will discover that not only he was a very good student (his records was excellent) at the Free University of Brussels first and the University of Lille secondly , but that he received consideration and admiration amongst his colleagues any times he gives a lecture or proposed a paper.--Titi2 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Bruno Marchal?

I'm very glad that Bruno had an impact on you, and I'm sure he's a great professors and all, but I wouldn't consider him a prominent scholar. Any cognitive scientist will easily recognize all of the other names on the list, but Marchal? Consider this... Each of the other names on the list have several publications who cite in the thousands, with at least one publication that has over 2000 cites. According to Google Scholar, Bruno's top publication has 55 citations. That's hardly what I call a "prominent scholar".

There are thousands of people who will subscribe to the idea of computational theory of mind, but it's misleading to beginners to name people who have any sort of affiliation with the field. We should restrict this section to those who have a hugely influential impact on subsequent research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.238.54 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proved or claimed

For a newspaper , you can use "claimed" because people can make conjecture without any demonstration. But here it's a Ph.thesis in theoretical informatics and it's the conclusion of the thesis.If you don't agree with a thesis , you have to demonstrate the possible error in it. Nobody have done it until today. So read the thesis (ok , it's in french , but it's an excellent opportunity to learn the langage of Voltaire).--Titi2 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quote : Proved" in this case is only appropriate for mathematics or logics. This is a psychology/epistemology-related claim. And, no, it's not a matter of "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with it!)
- I will answear to this.If you use logic in a discussion who seems to be philosophical more than mathematical , you use the same "mathematical implication".It's not a claim , it's a proof.A Ph D proof in a scientific domain (theoretical informatics) not a philosophical discussion.Read the text.--Titi2 (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations to Operating System?

I was wondering if there was any work in this field on whether the baseline code of this machine could be changed by other programs or direct inputs.

The standard analogy seams to be akin to the early mainframes operating directly off machine language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.196.128 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The first two paragraphs of the 'Criticism' section seem suspect. The first at least attempts to convey that a legitimate researcher has concerns about the physicality of the brains capacity to perform the processing assumed by the Computational Theory of Mind, and might be fixed with proper inline citations. The second paragraph however does not parse well and, dare I say it, even has an air of righteous indignation about it. DELORTING.