Maybe I missed it, but you referred a lot to how representationalism doesn't work, but not to *why* it doesn't work. A good summary somewhere?
-
-
Replying to @OortCloudAtlas @SpeakingSubject and
If you are up for reading a book, the “show notes” point at several that are squarely about this. Varela,
@evantthompson, & Rosch’s is probably the most readable! There’s lots of ways of coming at this, and it’s hard to write up in less than a book and more than a phrase.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
In a phrase: what physical properties could a thing-in-your-head have that would make it represent the fact that Ouagadougou is the capital of Burkina Faso?
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
By 1990 it became apparent that no answer to that was possible, even in principle. Once you bite that bullet, the whole cognitivist project collapses.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
Then you can start to think about alternatives. There’s lots of appealing starting points, but so far none of them have led to a generative research program that can regularly crank out concrete substantive results. No “normal science” yet; it’s “pre-paradigm” in Kuhn’s terms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
Somewhat relatedly: I find Culadasa’s appeals to cognitive science and/or neuroscience unconvincing and potentially misleading. Very short on details/footnotes; it seems to be a vague rehash of mainly 1980s-era stuff that has been discredited for decades.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @OortCloudAtlas and
What do you have in mind in particular?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SpeakingSubject @OortCloudAtlas and
Well… a proper analysis would be a long post and would be interpreted as a nasty attack on a nice person. But, for example, >
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
He’s heavily influenced by Minsky’s 1985 _Society of Mind_, which he does cite (p441) although he gets Minsky’s first name wrong :(
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
I was a student of Minsky’s. He was a genius, and the book had a huge impact in 1985, but within a few years it was apparent that the theory is unworkable, and no one in cognitive science has taken it seriously since. It’s a fascinating historical curiosity of a dead end.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I remember reading this book in the early 90s. In brief, why was his theory unworkable?
-
-
Replying to @SpeakingSubject @OortCloudAtlas and
It doesn’t ground into something specific enough to gain traction. There isn’t an in-principle failure, but none of the terms are definite enough to make it possible to take the project further, test it, implement it, or draw conclusions.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.