Attractive and In-discrete A Critique of Two Putative Virtues of the Dynamicist Theory of Mind ∗

I argue that dynamicism does not provide a convincing alternative to currently available cognitive theories. First, I show that the attractor dynamics of dynamicist models are inadequate for accounting for high-level cognition. Second, I argue that dynamicist arguments for the rejection of computation and representation are unsound in light of recent empirical findings. This new evidence provides a basis for questioning the importance of continuity to cognitive function, challenging a central commitment of dynamicism. Coupled with a defense of current connectionist theory, these two critiques lead to the conclusion that dynamicists have failed to achieve their goal of providing a new paradigm for understanding cognition.

[1]  William Bialek,et al.  Reliability and information transmission in spiking neurons , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[2]  Eric L. Schwartz,et al.  Computational Neuroscience , 1993, Neuromethods.

[3]  James M. Bower,et al.  Computational Neuroscience: Trends in Research , 1996 .

[4]  G. Globus Toward a Noncomputational Cognitive Neuroscience , 1992, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  Chris Eliasmith,et al.  The third contender: A critical examination of the Dynamicist theory of cognition , 1996 .

[6]  D. Lewkowicz,et al.  A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. , 2007, Journal of cognitive neuroscience.

[7]  T. Gelder,et al.  It's about time: an overview of the dynamical approach to cognition , 1996 .

[8]  E. C. Zeeman,et al.  Topology of the brain , 1965 .

[9]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Integrating structure and meaning: a distributed model of analogical mapping , 2001 .

[10]  C. Koch,et al.  Precision and Reliability of Neocortical Spike Trains in the Behaving Monkey , 1995 .

[11]  Masud Mansuripur,et al.  Introduction to information theory , 1986 .

[12]  Richard Reviewer-Granger Unified Theories of Cognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[14]  D. Freidman,et al.  The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey into the Brain , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  D. Amit The Hebbian paradigm reintegrated: Local reverberations as internal representations , 1995, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  James M. Bower,et al.  Computational Neuroscience: Trends in Research 1995 , 1996 .

[17]  Alan L. Yuille,et al.  Winner-take-all mechanisms , 1998 .

[18]  T. Gelder,et al.  The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The Computational Brain , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[20]  John R. Searle,et al.  Is the Brain a Digital Computer , 1990 .

[21]  T. Gelder,et al.  What Might Cognition Be, If Not Computation? , 1995 .

[22]  Mumford Issues in the Mathematical Modeling of Cortical Functioning and Thought , 1997 .

[23]  C. Stevens,et al.  Changes in reliability of synaptic function as a mechanism for plasticity , 1994, Nature.