Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Haugland - plausibility of cognitivism, Similarities, Intentional Black…
Haugland -
plausibility of cognitivism
Deductive-nomological
Derivative-nomological
Explicit emphasis on equotions
Equotion based
E.g. thermodynamics -> statistical dynamics
E.g. classical mechanics
Morphological expl.s
E.g. fiber optics bundle, old fashioned harvesting
Presuppose regularities:
about the abilities of the structure which is specified
Ability is explained
specific structure +specific abilities of the explained
NOT interdependent > summation of parts
Mixed
Systematic expl.s
Complexly organised patterns > interdependent
Systematic organisation + systematic hierarchy >
levels
E.g. automobile engine, bureaucratic corporation
ONLY
this is relevant
Cognitivism
:red_cross: depend on psy. issues
:red_cross: interested in psycho-physical bridge
Explain the reason-making ability
->
Reduction
of cog.psy.
to the relevant physical dimension
Explanation by Instantiation
Intentional instantiations
Deinterpret as IBB solving list-structures ->
Last intentional instantiation is a primitive machine language ->
Finally reduce to phy. instantions
#
Physical instantiations
Deinterpret as end-gate el.al circuits -> remainder is expressed in physical terms
:warning: easy to
confuse
:check:deinterpreting IBB
Information Processing System (IPS)
:red_cross:deinterpreting IBB
:check:there is a systematic exp.
:red_cross:introspection needed
:red_cross:purely behavioural descriptions
E.g. mind :thought_balloon:
Higher levels > systematic
Lowest level > morphological
Similarities
:check:scientifically rigoruous
:check:abstract some regularities
:check:there are presupposed regularities
( :red_cross: explained)
Intentional Black Box (IBB)
E.g. how to empirically justify sth plays chess
needed
Its inputs + outputs
how to interpret them
watch it play
:warning:
:red_cross:def. for "making reasonable sense"
(
cogency condition
)
:!: everyone knows
EVERYTHING can be claimed to make reasonable sense
:!: can be ignored
Input+outputs need to be
quasilinguistic representations
:red_cross:rules out many perceptions & actions
e.g. chessplaying device with camera + mechanical arm
:!: can be rephrased
Difference between the three
The nature of abstract forms they specify
Reduction
Examples
Relations
Generally
Meaning