COG250 Test 1

Naturalistic Imperative

Naturalistic Imperative

The ultimate goal of cog sci

The holistic aim to Analyze, Formalize, and Mechanize cognition

Analyze

Explaining the mental in terms of the non-mental

Takes something big and breaks it down (Macro to micro)

“All is the moist” - Thales

Formalize

Representing a theory in a clear and concise way

FORMULAS are a part of this

Mechanize

Involves the changing of a concept/theory into a physical process

Limited in cog sci because of morals (i.e. you CAN’T use someone’s functioning brain)

Equivocation

The same term being used for different meanings

e.g. How different disciplines interpret the concept of “mind”

Generic Nominalism

Generic term for all of the separate sciences that make cognitive science up
Rejects equivocation, fragmentation, and the idea that the disciplines build off of each other

“Cognitive Sciences” refers to each discipline as one of the cognitive sciences
WEAKEST version of cog sci

Interdisciplinary Electiscism

Disciplines communicate BUT don’t interact. People pick and choose from different disciplines as needed

e.g. Interfaith dialogue

MOST UNSTABLE version of cog sci

Synoptic Integration

Vervaeke’s favorite

Sees to link all disciplines

Addresses the equivocation, deals with the fragmentation, and fills in the ignorance

Uses bridging vocabulary

STRONGEST version of cog sci

Elegance

Is multi-apt

Association NOT causation

Enough evidence leads to it (Seems logical)

Necessary half of a theory

TOO MUCH is farfetched (e.g. Conspiracy theories)

Convergence

Causation NOT association

Unbiased

Creates trustworthiness

Necessary half of a theory

TOO MUCH is trivial, it states the obvious (e.g. When people are hungry they eat food)

Plausibility

A quality a theory has as being reasonable or probable

Requires an equal balance of elegance and trustworthiness in order to be valid

Similarity

Things that share properties BUT are NOT identical (i.e. MORE things shared means they are MORE _________)

Logically it CAN’T explain categorization and psychologically it’s homuncular either way it’s USELESS

Categorization

Notice similarity and group things that ARE similar together

By grouping things together we DON’T have to treat all things as individual beings

Once we have a category of an entity we can simplify interactions with it

Homuncular Fallacy

When a concept is explained in terms of the concept itself

The concept of similarity has this problem

e.g. We can see something because there is a little man in our head who can see what we see and tells us, but he has a little man in his head who can see what he sees and tell him, etc.

Goodman’s Problem

Any two things can be deemed similar

When we define things we are actually equivocating

Key issue with resemblance theory

“Similarity is "invidious, insidious, a pretender, an imposter, a quack"

Resemblance Theory (Smith)

Theory that similarity causes categorization

Argued against by Lance Rips

Problems:

Categorization causes similarity

Similarity CAN’T be formalized

Equivocation of similarity

Classical Theory of Concepts

States that categorization is NOT similarity driven it is driven by concepts

Avoids all the problems of resemblance theory

6 features:

Meaning can be captured by a list of features

Features are atomic and ultimately primitive

Each feature has essence

Concepts generate categories

All members of the concept are equally good members

When organized into a taxonomic hierarchy we can get transitive inference

Concept

A mental definition

Essence

Set of features that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient

Prototype Theory

A cognitive psychological theory that suggests that when people categorize objects, they do so based on how similar the object is to a prototypical (or ideal) example of that category

Problems:

Conflicts with strict criteria (i.e. Math and formulas)

How do we create a prototype? (Creates a circular argument)

Concept boundaries are UNCLEAR or “fuzzy”

Typicality gradient (e.g. spoons)

Typicality Gradient

The concept that some things are MORE closely related to a category than other things

e.g. Robins are MORE typical than penguins

Micro-Theory Theory

A theory that states that concepts are small theories and are explanations of behavior

Breaking down BIG scientific theories into smaller ones

Problems:

DOESN’T help the naturalistic imperative

Homuncular (e.g. This theory is made up of smaller theories which are made up of even smaller theories which are… )

Reconstructive Memory

Memory is NOT reproductive

Your memory is NOT completely false BUT it only remembers what is meaningful and relevant

Whatever information you get from the past has to be reconstructed to current context because memory is ADAPTIVE

Linear Separability

Things either qualify or they DON’T there’s a fine line that separates the two

Transitivity

Being able to understand how objects are related to one another

e.g. If John is taller than Mary, and Mary is taller than Sue, then John is taller than Sue

Family Resemblance

Concepts DON'T share exactly the same features BUT there are some that overlap

Apt

Able to transfer broadly and deeply to many domains

Deduction

IF the premises is true the conclusion MUST be true

e.g. All humans are mortal, I am a human, therefore I am mortal

Induction

If the premises are true it increases the probability that the conclusion is true

e.g. All the swans I have seen are white, therefore all swans are white