No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Paul Thagard, Mind: An Introduction to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1996. Pp. xi + 213.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Critical Notice
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 1998
References
1 Shannon, C. E. ‘A Mathematical Theory of Communication,’ Bell System Techhical Journal 27 (1948) 379–423; 623-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Bechtel, W. Abrahamsen, A. and Graham, G. ‘The Life of Cognitive Science,’ A Companion to Cognitive Science, Bechtel, W. and Graham, G. eds. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1998)Google Scholar
3 Miller, G.A. Galanter, E. and Pribram, K. Plans and the Structure of Behavior (New York: Holt 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newell, A. and Simon, H. Human Problem Solving (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1972)Google Scholar
4 Fodor, J.A. The Modularity of Mind (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 May, L. Friedman, M. and Clark, A. eds., Mind and Morals: Essays on Ethics and Cognitive Science (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 See, e.g., Dennett, D.C. The Intentional Stance (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1987);Google Scholar Stich, S.P. The Fragmentation of Reason: Preface to a Pragmatic Theory of Cognitive Evaluation (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1990)Google Scholar.
7 See, e.g., Fodor, J.A. The Language of Thought (New York: T. Crowell 1975)Google Scholar; Fodor, J.A. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis,’ Cognition 28 (1988) 3–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
8 Bruer, J. Schools for Thought (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1993)Google Scholar
9 Norman, D. Things that Make Us Smart (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 1989)Google Scholar
10 J.S. Bruner, Goodnow, J. and Austin, G. A Study of Thinking (New York: Wiley 1956)Google Scholar
11 Rips, L.J. Shoben, E.J. and Smith, E.E ‘Semantic Distance and the Verification of Semantic Relations,’ Joumal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12 (1973) 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. ‘Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,’ Cognitive Psychology 7 (1975) 573–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Medin, D.L. and Schaeffer, M.M. ‘Context Theory of Classification Learning,’ Psychological Review 85 (1978) 207–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Murphy, G.L. and Medin, D.L. ‘The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence,’ Psychological Review 92 (1985) 289–316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Barsalou, L.W. and Hale, C.R. ‘Components of Conceptual Representation: From Feature Lists to Recursive Frames,’ Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis, Mechelen, I. Van Hampton, J. Michalski, R. and Theuns, P. eds. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press 1993)Google Scholar
15 Rumelhart, D.E. Smolensky, P. McClelland, J.L. and Hinton, G.E. ‘Schemata and Sequential Thought Processes in PDP Models,’ Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of the Mind, Vol 2: Psychological and Biological Models, McClelland, J.L. and Rumelhart, D.E. eds. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1986)Google Scholar
16 Miikkulainen, R. Subsymbolic Natural Language Processing: An Integrated Model of Scripts, Lexicon, and Memory (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1993)Google Scholar
17 Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A. Connectionism and the Mind (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1991)Google Scholar; Bechtel, W. ‘Natural Deduction in Connectionist Systems,’ Synthese 101 (1994) 433–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Kosslyn, S.M. Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Deacon, T.W. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and Brain (New York: W.W. Norton 1997)Google Scholar
20 See Milner, B. and Petrides, M. ‘Behavioral Effects of Frontal-Lobe Lesions in Man,’ Trends in Neurosciences 7 (1984) 403–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Kimberg, D.Y. and Farah, M.J. ‘A Unified Account of Cognitive Impairments Following Frontal Lobe Damage: The Role of Working Memory in Complex Organized Behavior,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122 (1993) 411–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Note also that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been shown to be implicated in short-term memory performance in humans as well as non-human primates. See Frackowiak, R.S.J. ‘Functional Mapping of Verbal Memory and Language,’ Trends in Neurosciences 17 (1994) 109–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kupfermann, I. ‘Localization of Higher Cognitive and Affective Functions: The Association Cortices,’ Principles of Neural Science, Kandel, E.R. Schwartz, J.H. and Jessell, T.M. eds. (Norwalk: Appleton and Lange 1991).Google Scholar
22 Tulving, E. ‘Multiple Memory Systems and Consciousness,’ Human Neurobiology 6 (1987) 67–80, at 72Google ScholarPubMed
23 Tulving, E. Elements of Episodic Memory (Suffolk: St. Edmundsbury Press 1983), 21Google Scholar
24 See Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R.C. Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Scientific Research Strategies (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1993)Google Scholar; also see Waskan, J.A. ‘Non-Propositional Representation and Mechanistic Justificatory Inference,’ paper presented at the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, 1997Google Scholar.
25 See Baddeley, A. Human Memory (Boston: Allyn and Bacon 1990)Google Scholar
26 In all fairness, we should note that Thagard does advocate an inquiry into the potential integration of multiple representational formats (134). If this inquiry were guided not just by computational considerations, but also by proposals as to how the cognitive system is decomposed, then the distance between his approach and our proposal here would be significantly reduced.
27 Craik, F.I. and Lockhart, R.S. ‘Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research,’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972) 671–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffrin, R.M. ‘Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes,’ The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Spence, W.K. and Spence, J.T. eds. (New York: Academic Press 1968)Google Scholar
29 The earlier approach retains its relevance, but is generally invoked under rather circumscribed conditions such as tasks in which subjects are explicitly instructed to remember lists of items. See, for instance, Cowan, N. Wood, N.L. and Borne, D.N. ‘Reconfirmation of the Short Term Storage Concept,’ American Psychological Society 5 (1994) 103–6Google Scholar.
30 Hyde, T.S. and Jenkins, J.J. ‘Recall for Words as a Function of Semantic, Graphic, and Syntactic Orienting Tasks,’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12 (1973) 471–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Neuropsychologists have also, it should be noted, often adopted the experimental techniques of cognitive psychology (which require comparisons amongst groups of subjects).
32 See Ellis, A.W. and Young, A.W. Human Cognitive Neuropsychology (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum 1988).Google Scholar
33 While damage to the hippocampus is often taken to be the critical factor underlying this amnesiac syndrome, Weiskrantz notes that the mammillary bodies, the medialdorsal thalamus, and the mammillo-thalamic tract may be equally (if not more) important (Weiskrantz, L. ‘Neuroanatomy of Memory and Amnesia: A Case for Multiple Memory Systems,’ Human Neurobiology 6 [1987] 93–105).Google ScholarPubMed
34 If the information concerns a personal event, then events may be dated by family members. Public events (e.g., well-covered news stories) are also easy to date.
35 MacKinnon, D.F. and Squire, L.R. ‘Autobiographical Memory and Amnesia,’ Psychobiology 17 (1989) 247–56, at 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Posner, M.I. and Raichle, M.E. Images of Mind (New York: Scientific American Library 1993)Google Scholar
37 Nyberg, L. Cabeza, R. and Tulving, E. ‘PET Studies of Encoding and Retrieval: The HERA Model,’ Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3 (1996) 135–48, at 138CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38 Though the left prefrontal cortex is also taken to be more involved in the retrieval of semantic information, for the sake of simplicity we will omit discussion of the relevant evidence.
39 Kapur, S. et al., ‘Neuroanatomical Correlates of Encoding in Episodic Memory: Levels of Processing Effect,’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 91 (1994) 2008–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40 Deeper processing was evidenced by better memory on a subsequent recognition test for items presented under the semantic encoding condition.
41 Keep in mind also that assessments of scientific methodology have been a longstanding pursuit of philosophers. The relation of philosophy to cognitive science is thus in some ways independent of the assumptions regarding cognition made here.
42 See Clark, A. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1997)Google Scholar; and Hutchins, E. Cognition in the Wild (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1995).Google Scholar
43 See Darden, L. and Maull, N. ‘Interfield Theories,’ Philosophy of Science 43 (1977) 44–64Google Scholar; also Bechtel, Abrahamsen, and Graham.
44 Port, R. and Gelder, T. van eds., Mind as Motion (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1995)Google Scholar
45 Bechtel, W. ‘Biological and Social Constraints on Cognitive Processes: The Need for Dynamical Interactions Between Levels of Inquiry,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25 (1995) 133–64Google Scholar
46 J.A. Fodor, The Language of Thought
47 Churchland, P.M. The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1995)Google Scholar
48 E.g., Fodor, J.A. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pylyshyn, Z.W. Computation and Cognition (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 1984).Google Scholar