learning_paradigms:cognitivism
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
learning_paradigms:cognitivism [2011/06/30 14:50] jpetrovic [Criticisms] |
learning_paradigms:cognitivism [2011/06/30 15:18] jpetrovic [Read more] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| Since the beginning of its intensive development during the 1960s various critics of cognitivism have emerged, challenging its assumption that **mental functions can be compared to an information processing model**. Some authors like John Searle or Roger Penrose claim that computation, due to its inherent limitations, can never achieve the complexity and possibilities of human mental functions and therefore cannot be successfully used to describe them. Common examples for this are: | Since the beginning of its intensive development during the 1960s various critics of cognitivism have emerged, challenging its assumption that **mental functions can be compared to an information processing model**. Some authors like John Searle or Roger Penrose claim that computation, due to its inherent limitations, can never achieve the complexity and possibilities of human mental functions and therefore cannot be successfully used to describe them. Common examples for this are: | ||
| - | * **[[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]** which claim that "//within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements.//"((Jones & Wilson. An Incomplete Education. In [[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Denton, W. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Miskatonic University Press.]])). Oversimplified, this means computers will never be capable of human-like cognition since they are limited to a limited set of axioms. The information-processing model should therefore have a limited application in case of humans. [[http://kgs.logic.at/index.php?id=23|Kurt Gödel]] proved his two theorems of incompleteness in 1931. | + | * **[[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]** which claim that "//within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements.//"((Jones & Wilson. An Incomplete Education. In [[http://books.google.hr/books?id=T_CDuCMkIYQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mind%E2%80%99s+Provisions:+A+Critique+of+Cognitivism&hl=hr&ei=1HIMTpGjEIeZ8QPotuzKDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false|Denton, W. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Miskatonic University Press.]])). Oversimplified, this means computers will never be capable of human-like cognition since they are limited to a limited set of axioms. The information-processing model should therefore have a limited application in case of humans. [[http://kgs.logic.at/index.php?id=23|Kurt Gödel]] proved his two theorems of incompleteness in 1931. |
| * **[[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-turings-halting-pr|Turing's halting problem]]** which claims that given a description of a program, it is impossible to decide whether the program finishes running or continues to run forever for any given program input. This theorem proven by [[http://www.alanturing.net/|Alan Turing]] in 1936 shows how some things are naturally non-computable. | * **[[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-turings-halting-pr|Turing's halting problem]]** which claims that given a description of a program, it is impossible to decide whether the program finishes running or continues to run forever for any given program input. This theorem proven by [[http://www.alanturing.net/|Alan Turing]] in 1936 shows how some things are naturally non-computable. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| - | [[http://web.mac.com/cranetim/Tims_website/Book_reviews_files/Descombes%20review.pdf|Crane, T. Book review of "The Mind’s Provisions" by Vincent Descombes. European Journal of Philosophy 12, no. 3: p399–406. 2004.]] | + | [[http://books.google.hr/books?id=T_CDuCMkIYQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mind%E2%80%99s+Provisions:+A+Critique+of+Cognitivism&hl=hr&ei=1HIMTpGjEIeZ8QPotuzKDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false|Descombes, Vincent. The mind's provisions: a critique of cognitivism, 2001.]] |
learning_paradigms/cognitivism.txt · Last modified: 2023/06/19 18:03 (external edit)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
