Does functionalism offer an adequate account of cognitive psychology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Confidence in logical positivism and operationism waned in both philosophy and psychology during the 1960s. At about the same time, psychology experienced the revolution, which reinstated mental states and processes as central to theory building and explanation. As Levin (2013) points out in her review, psychologists turned to the functionalist theory of mind (Putnam, 1975) as a philosophical underpinning for all aspects of cognition. This interchange produced psycho-functionalism, as described by Levin:A second strain of functionalism, psycho-functionalism, derives primarily from reflection upon the goals and methodology of cognitive psychological theories. In contrast to the behaviorists' insistence that the laws of psychology appeal only to behavioral dispositions, psychologists argue that the best empirical theories of behavior take it [behavior] to be the result of a complex of mental states and processes, introduced and individuated in terms of the roles they play inproducing the behavior to be explained.... All versions of functionalism, however, can be regarded as characterizing mental states in terms of their roles in some psychological theory or other, (p.7)Hence, as Levin sees it, functionalism in all its aspects is intertwined with psychology at both the philosophical and psychological levels.The purpose of this essay is as follows: (a) to describe the philosophical roots of functionalism; (b) to present an overview of functionalism as it currently operates in psychology; (c) to review objections to functionalism; and (d) to examine an alternative account, the Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) model, recently proposed in psychology itself (Spalding and Gagne, 2013; Spalding, Stedman, Hancock, and Gagne, 2014) and within the philosophy of mind (Feser, 2006, 2014; Madden, 2013).Analytic Philosophy and FunctionalismAnalytic philosophy, spawned in Britain as a reaction to idealism, dominates English-speaking philosophy to the present time. As Preston (2007) demonstrates in his review of the history of analytic philosophy, the movement was initiated by Russell and Moore, refined as logical atomism by Russell and Wittgenstein (see Wittgenstein, 1922), elaborated by the Vienna Circle as logical positivism (Ayers, 1952), seriously questioned by Quine (1951), and later reinvented by Wittgenstein (1953). Preston characterizes contemporary analytic philosophy, the home of the philosophy of mind, as eclectic and interested in limited metaphysical problems, as still grounded in language analysis and semantics, and as interested in the kinds of thought experiments often used by philosophers of mind. Although current philosophers of mind are spilt along property dualism (Chalmers, 1996, 2010; Nagel, 1974) and materialist lines (Churchland, 1986; Lewis, 1966), all agree that processes, from sensation and memory through all of the higher order phenomena of thinking, reasoning, categorization, planning, etc., can be explained by the doctrine of functionalism. In fact, Chalmers (1996), though a property dualist, asserted this about functionalist models:Cognitive models are well suited to explaining psychological aspects of consciousness. There is no vast metaphysical problem in the idea that a physical system should be able to introspect its internal states, or that it should be able to deal rationally with information from its environment, or that it should be able to focus its attention first in one place and then in the next. It is clear enough that an appropriate functional account should be able to explain these abilities, even if discovering the correct account takes decades or centuries, (p. 31)In her review, Levin (2013) points out that functionalism has antecedents (Ryle, 1949; Turing, 1950; Wittgenstein, 1953) but emerged as a definitive philosophical position in the last 35 years of the twentieth century. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».