Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:10:58.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criteria and evaluation of cognitive theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2004

Petros A. M. Gelepithis
Petros A. M. Gelepithis*
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Laboratory, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT1 2EE, England
*
Petros@kingston.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

I have three types of interrelated comments. First, on the choice of the proposed criteria, I argue against any list and for a system of criteria. Second, on grading, I suggest modifications with respect to consciousness and development. Finally, on the choice of “theories” for evaluation, I argue for Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection instead of connectionism (classical or not).

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 607 - 609
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. I use the terms cognitive theory, unified theories of cognition (UTCs), and ToM interchangeably with respect to their coextensive coverage of human phenomena, and UTC and ToM distinctly with respect to their characteristics.

2. For some interesting earlier results of our approach, the reader is referred to Gelepithis (1991; 1997), Gelepithis and Goodfellow (1992), Gelepithis and Parillon (2002).

3. Evolutionary and neurophysiological findings and principles and the synthetic neural modelling approach to the construction of intelligent entities. For a comparison of four ToMs, see Gelepithis (1999).