Talk:Computational theory of mind

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Philosophy: Mind Low‑importance

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 articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 Allen Newell and Herbert Simon's work 1956-1970, and how this inspired the movement.
1. I just read this article and was quite surprised by the absence of reference to Simon and Newell. The Logic Theorist article points to relevant sources and other relevant summaries are not hard to find (e.g., [1]). --Koedinger (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]

he got added back. I agree with removal (see below). Wichitalineman (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2012 (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]

Newell and Simon are no longer mentioned! --Koedinger (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2016 (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]

i think the section on "computer metaphor" could be deleted, or radically revised to fit into the discussion better. It's unsourced, contradicts some of what is in the major literature (in which at many points, including e.g. in Putnam both pro- and anti-CTM, computationalism just IS the metaphor that the mind is a computer, whatever that might mean), and does not contribute to the main line of argument. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2012 (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".

agree with removal. this is a brief article and should only touch on the major figures in the field; many others of more prominence than Marchal are not mentioned at all, and I'm not in favor of making this a Stanford Encyclopedia-level of detail on the topic. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

wouldn't a new finding in a dissertation be a "primary source" though? see [2] 88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2013 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.124.195 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what was state then. Just pulled some egregious stuff but the whole section is weak and parts muddled. Here's what I removed:

Some of the most compelling^{[citation needed]} encompass the physical realm of a computational process. Gallistel writes in Learning and Representation about some of the implications of a truly computational system of the mind. Essentially Gallistel is concerned with the limits of thermodynamics within the circuits of the brain. With the high volume of information, and the low level of lost material necessary, we have to ask where the energy comes from and how the heat would be dissipated.^{[citation needed]}

If in fact it's directly relevant could be cleaned up and put back, but close to gobbledygook advert for Gallistel, whoever that is, like that. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to make radical changes this time around but I agree that Gallistel's is just one perspective among many, many others and I don't see its particular importance here. IMO it could be removed as it's nowhere near as major as the other figures/theories mentioned. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computational theory of mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs's understanding of computation

This sentence doesn't seem encyclopaedic to me: "Since Hobbes lived before the contemporary identification of computing with instantiating effective procedures, he cannot be interpreted as explicitly endorsing the computational theory of mind, in the contemporary sense."

Surely the preceding paragraph shows that he understands "computation" as we do in the modern world. While the computational theory of mind extends the complexity beyond just reason, the fact that Hobbs identifies reason as computational thinking shows an early and appropriate embodiment of this theory.

I propose that this section be removed. I don't believe it needs to be replaced with anything, although I am not a student of Hobbs, and am unaware if there is more to say on this issue. Thoughts? Seblopedia (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]