Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 1–25 | Cite as

Levels of description and explanation in cognitive science

  • William Bechtel
Critical Exchange

Abstract

The notion of levels has been widely used in discussions of cognitive science, especially in discussions of the relation of connectionism to symbolic modeling of cognition. I argue that many of the notions of levels employed are problematic for this purpose, and develop an alternative notion grounded in the framework of mechanistic explanation. By considering the source of the analogies underlying both symbolic modeling and connectionist modeling, I argue that neither is likely to provide an adequate analysis of processes at the level at which cognitive theories attempt to function: One is drawn from too low a level, the other from too high a level. If there is a distinctly cognitive level, then we still need to determine what are the basic organizational principles at that level.

Key words

Connectionism symbol processing levels of organization reduction mechanistic explanation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barlow, H.B. (1953), ‘Summation and Inhibition in the Frog's Retina’,Journal of Physiology 119, pp. 69–88.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (1988),Philosophy of Science: An Overview for Cognitive Science, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (1993a), ‘Currents in Connectionism’,Minds and Machines 3, pp 125–153.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (1993b), ‘Integrating Sciences by Creating New Disciplines: The Case of Cell Biology’,Biology and Philosophy 8, pp. 277–299.Google Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A.A. (1991),Connectionism and the Mind, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R.C. (1992),Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Scientific Research Strategies, Princeton, NJ: Princton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Broadbent, D. (1985), ‘A Question of Levels: Comment of McClelland and Rumelhart’,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114, pp. 189–192.Google Scholar
  8. Causey, R. (1977),Unity of Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Darden, L. and Maull, N. (1977), ‘Interfield Theories’,Philosophy of Science 43, pp. 44–64.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J.A. (1974), ‘Special Sciences (Or: Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis’,Synthese 28, pp. 97–115.Google Scholar
  11. Fodor, J.A. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1988), ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis’,Cognition 28, pp. 3–71.Google Scholar
  12. Hinton, G.E. (1986), ‘Learning Distributed Representations of Concepts’,Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 161–187.Google Scholar
  13. Hinton, G.E. and Shallice, T. (1991), ‘Lesioning an Attractor Network: Investigations of Acquired Dyslexia’,Psychological Review 98, pp. 74–95.Google Scholar
  14. Hubel, D.H. and Wiesel, T.N. (1962), ‘Receptive Fields, Binocular Interaction and Functional Architecture in the Cat's Visual Cortex’,Journal of Physiology 166, 105–54.Google Scholar
  15. Hubel, D.H. and Wiesel, T.N. (1968), ‘Receptive Fields and Functional Architecture of Monkey Striate Cortex’,Journal of Physiology 195, pp. 215–243.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, R.A., Jordan, M.I., and Barto, A.G. (1991), ‘Task Decomposition Through Competition in a Modular Connectionist Architecture: The What and Where Vision Tasks’,Cognitive Science 15, pp. 219–250.Google Scholar
  17. Kosslyn, S.A., Flynn, R.A., Amsterdam, J.B., and Wang, G. (1990), ‘Components of High-Level Vision: A Cognitive Neuroscience Analysis and Accounts of Neurological Syndromes’,Cognition 34, pp. 203–277.Google Scholar
  18. McCauley, R.N. (1986), ‘Intertheoretic Relations and the Future of Psychology,Philosophy of Science,53, pp. 179–199.Google Scholar
  19. McClamrock, R. (1991) ‘Marr's Three Levels: A Re-Evolution’,Minds and Machines 1, pp. 185–196.Google Scholar
  20. McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E., and the PDP Research Group (1986),Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. McCloskey, M. and Cohen, N.J. (1989), ‘Catastrophic Interference in Connectionist Networks: The Sequential Learning Problem’, in G.H. Bower (ed.)The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 24, New York: Academic Press, pp. 109–65.Google Scholar
  22. Marr, D. (1969), ‘A Theory of Cerebellar Cortex’,Journal of Physiology 202, pp. 437–470.Google Scholar
  23. Marr, D. (1982),Vision. A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  24. Mitchell, P. (1966), ‘Chemiosmotic Coupling in Oxidative and Photosynthetic Phosphorylation’,Biological Reviews 41, pp. 445–502.Google Scholar
  25. Nagel, E. (1961),The Structure of Science, New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  26. Nickels, T. (1973), ‘Two Concepts of Intertheoretic Reduction’,Journal of Philosophy 70, pp. 181–210.Google Scholar
  27. Nowlan, S.J. (1990), ‘Competing Experts: An Experimental Investigation of Associative Mixture Models’, Technical Report CRG-TR-90-5, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  28. O'Keefe, J. and Nadel, L. (1978),The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pinker, S. and Prince, A. (1988), ‘On Language and Connectionism: Analysis of a Parallel Distributed Model of Language Acquisition’,Cognition 28, 73–193.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberg, J.F. (1990). ‘Treating Connectionism Properly: Reflections on Smolensky’,Psychological Research 4, pp. 163–174.Google Scholar
  31. Rumelhart, D.E. and McClelland, J.L. (1985), ‘Levels Indeed! A Response to Broadbent’,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114, pp. 193–197.Google Scholar
  32. Rumelhart, D.E. and McClelland, J.L. (1986), ‘On Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs’, in J.L. McClelland, D.E. Rumelhart, and the PDP Research Group (eds.)Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rumelhart, D.E., McClelland, J.L., and the PDP Research Group (1986),Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 1: Foundations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schaffner, K. (1967), ‘Approaches to reduction’,Philosophy of Science 34, pp. 137–47.Google Scholar
  35. Shallice, T. (1988),From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smolensky, P. (1988). ‘On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  37. Wimsatt, W.C. (1976), ‘Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem’, in G. Globus, G. Maxwell, and I. Savodnik (Eds.),Consciousness and the Brain: A Scientific and Philosophical Inquiry, New York: Plenum, pp. 205–267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Bechtel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGeorgia State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations