Comparing the Two Theories Computational Theory of Mind Meaning-making or information processing? Is Computational Theory of Mind just a fancier form of behaviorism? Unit of analysis: What gets left out? Distributed Cognition

Computational Theory of Mind Original Goals To formally describe the meanings humans make of their worlds & then hypothesize what meaning-making processes might be involved To replace behaviorism, not simply reform it by adding a bit of mentalism Five Key Features Posits a level of analysis wholly separate from the biological or neurological Faith that central to any understanding of the human mind is the computer Deliberate decision to de-emphasize certain factors that may be important but complicate things (emotion, history/culture, role of context) Faith in interdisciplinary studies (philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, anthropology, neuroscience) Claim that a key ingredient in contemporary cognitive psych. is the agenda of issues which have long exercised epistemologists in the Western philosophical tradition

Meaning-Making or Computation of Information? Original Goal A. To formally describe the meanings humans make of their worlds & then hypothesize what meaning-making processes might be involved Key Feature 2. Faith that central to any understanding of the human mind is the computer Mind-as-computer as the dominant metaphor Preoccupation with Models – Understanding of human cognition reduced to the ability to simulate some cognitive process with a computer program Yet…Information is indifferent to meaning (system processes the same regardless of whether the ‘information’ being computed is Shakespeare’s sonnets or numbers from a random table) Emphasis shifted from construction of meaning to processing of information

Is Computational Theory of Mind Just a Fancier Form of Behaviorism? Original Goal B. To replace behaviorism, not simply reform it by adding a bit of mentalism input & output replace stimuli & responses Outcome information – gleaned from current situation through monitoring processes (e.g., metacognition) – replaces reinforcement Mental states – such as believing, desiring, intending, grasping a meaning – are left out

Unit of Analysis: What Gets Left Out? Key Feature 3. Deliberate decision to de-emphasize certain factors that may be important but complicate things What Gets Left Out? Emotion Body Environment + Tools & Artifacts Social & Cultural Context Are these aspects important? Emotion – Phineas Gage in 1848 (Damasio) Body – Embodiment Theory, Metaphors Environment + Tools & Artifacts – Affordances & Constraints, Extended Cognition Social & Cultural Context – Vygotsky, symbols are social

Distributed Cognition Cognition is (inter)action in the social & material world. Unit of analysis: Cognition not just in the head; rather, stretched over intact activity systems Activity systems –  structures of interactions btwn individuals and their social & material contexts Such activity systems include: Individual person Social relationships Physical and temporal contexts Symbolic & material resources Historical change Within such systems, cognition is “a complex social phenomenon…distributed — stretched over, not divided among — mind, body, activity and culturally organized settings (which include other actors)” (Lave, 1988).

Example: Imagine a teacher creating a science activity for a middle school classroom… Assumptions of Computational Theory of Mind Cognition is bounded, dependent but autonomous system Hence, factoring assumption Dualist ontological tradition Assumptions of Distributed Cognition Theory Basic organizing structure: “communities of practice” Meaning evolves through enculturation Meaning of x @ regular pattern of interaction w/x Identity: Changes in knowing = changes in being Non-Dualist Ontological Tradition Learning = progress along trajectories of participation & growth of identity