In Praise of Narrow Minds: The Frame Problem

Part of the Studies in Cognitive Systems book series (COGS, volume 1)


If you have a taste for realist doctrines, suppose that the mind is a store of real, efficacious beliefs, desires and propositional attitudes generally. Why should anyone agree that propositional attitudes exist? For much the same reasons that lead us to endorse other scientifically reputable entities. Our behavior is largely explicable by reference to the propositional attitudes we have, variation in behavior devolving from variation in propositional attitudes. This leads to two questions. First, how is it that if behavior is driven by propositional attitudes, it is typically appropriate to the circumstances of its production? And second, if variation in behavior falls to variation in propositional attitudes, what accounts for variation among propositional attitudes?


Cognitive System Belief Revision Cognitive Agent Propositional Attitude Modular System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, John.: 1983, The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Block, Ned: 1981, Imagery MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Boden, Margaret: 1977, Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Brand, Myles: 1984, Intending and Acting, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam: 1980, Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Churchland, Patricia Smith: 1980, ‘Language, Thought and Information Processing’, Noûs 14, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchland, Paul: 1979, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Churchland, Paul: 1986, ‘Some Reductive Strategies in Cognitive Neurobiology’, forth-coming in Mind.Google Scholar
  9. Dennett, Daniel: 1978a, ‘A Cure for the Common Code’, in Dennett’s Brainstorms, Bradford Books, Montgomery, Vt., pp. 90–108.Google Scholar
  10. Dennett, Daniel: 1978b, ‘Brain Writing and Mind Reading’, in Dennett’s Brainstorms, Bradford Books, Montgomery, Vt., pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
  11. Dennett, Daniel: 1978c, ‘Artificial Intelligence as Philosophy and Psychology’, in Dennett’s Brainstorms, Bradford Books, Montgomery, Vt., pp. 109–126.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, Jerry: 1975, The Language of Thought, Thomas Crowell, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, Jerry: 1983, Modularity of Mind, Bradford Books. Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, Jerry: 1985, ‘Précis of The Modularity of Mind’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, 1–42 (including peer reviews).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haugeland, John: 1981, Mind Design, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Haugeland, John: 1985, Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  17. Heil, John: 1985, ‘Rationality and Psychological Explanation’, Inquiry 28, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marcus, M.: 1977, ‘A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language’, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. Marr, D.: 1982, Vision, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  20. Mele, A.: 1986, ‘Incontinent Believing’, Philosophical Quarterly 36, 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P.: 1969, ‘Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence’, in Meltzer, B. and Michie, D. (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 463–502.Google Scholar
  22. Minsky, Marvin: 1975, ‘A Framework for Representing Knowledge’, in P. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, McGraw-Hill, New York, reprinted in Haugeland (1981), pp. 95–128.Google Scholar
  23. Nagel, Thomas: 1974, ‘What is it Like to be a Bat?’ Philosophical Review 83, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Putnam, Hilary: 1983, ‘Computational Psychology and Interpretation Theory’, in Putnam’s Realism and Reason, Philosophical Papers: Volume III, Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pylyshyn, Zenon: 1984, Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Raphael, B.: 1971, ‘The Frame Problem in Problem-Solving Systems’, in N. V. Findler and B. Meltzer (eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Heuristic Programming, American Elsevier Publishing Co. New York, pp. 159–169.Google Scholar
  27. Schank, R. C: 1982, Dynamic Memory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P.: 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N. J..Google Scholar
  29. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D.: 1974, ‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science 185, 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Winograd, Terry: 1971, Procedures as a Representation for Data in a Computer Program for Understanding Natural Languages, MIT Project MAC, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOakland UniversityRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations