Minds and Machines

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 379–401

An Analysis of the Criteria for Evaluating Adequate Theories of Computation

Article

Abstract

This paper deals with the question: What are the criteria that an adequate theory of computation has to meet? (1) Smith’s answer: it has to meet the empirical criterion (i.e. doing justice to computational practice), the conceptual criterion (i.e. explaining all the underlying concepts) and the cognitive criterion (i.e. providing solid grounds for computationalism). (2) Piccinini’s answer: it has to meet the objectivity criterion (i.e. identifying computation as a matter of fact), the explanation criterion (i.e. explaining the computer’s behaviour), the right things compute criterion, the miscomputation criterion (i.e. accounting for malfunctions), the taxonomy criterion (i.e. distinguishing between different classes of computers) and the empirical criterion. (3) Von Neumann’s answer: it has to meet the precision and reliability of computers criterion, the single error criterion (i.e. addressing the impacts of errors) and the distinction between analogue and digital computers criterion. (4) “Everything” computes answer: it has to meet the implementation theory criterion by properly explaining the notion of implementation.

Keywords

Cognition Computation Computationalism Computers Implementation Practice Subject Matter Theory Turing machines 

References

  1. Agassi, J. (1985). Technology: Philosophical and social aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). Does a rock implement every finite-state automaton? Synthese, 108, 309–333.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Copeland, J. B. (1996). What is computation? Synthese, 108, 335–359.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Dretske, F. I. (1988). Explaining behaviour. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Piccinini, G. (2007). Computing mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 74, 501–526.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Popper, K. R. (2002a). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Popper, K. R. (2002b). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Putnam, H. (1992). Representation and reality. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1989). Computing in cognitive science. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 51–91). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Scheutz, M. (1999). When physical systems realize functions. Minds and Machines, 9, 161–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Searle, J. R. (1990). Is the brain a digital computer? Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 64, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, B. C. (1996). On the origin of objects. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, B. C. (2002). The foundations of computing. In M. Scheutz (Ed.), Computationalism: New directions (pp. 23–58). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Von Neumann, J. (1948). The general and logical theory of automata. In A. H. Taub (Ed.), (1963), Collected works (Vol. V, pp. 288–328). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wittgenstein, L. J. (2001). Philosophical investigations: 50th Anniversary commemorative edition. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of History and PhilosophyThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations