Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science

COGS Q240 | Spring 2015

Meeting Times
All meetings are in Rose Ave
Resident Hall (RA) B109
Main lectures, Mo-We 9:3010:45
Discussion section, Fr 12:201:10
Instructor
Nicholas Zautra
Department of History and
Philosophy of Science
Email: nzautra@indiana.edu
Office hours: by appointment
Associate Instructor
Joseph Adams
Cognitive Science Program
Email: adamsjo@indiana.edu
Subject Matter
Cognitive Science emerged about 60 years ago from developments in philosophy,
computer science, psychology, and linguistics. Central to this emergence were new
ideas about how minds could be understood in computational terms: the computational
theory of mind. The belief that intelligence could be understood in terms of physical
processing of symbolic representations served to unite artificial intelligence and
cognitive psychology under a common philosophical framework, and it was believed that
computers with human-level capacities would be rapidly achieved. Progress in artificial

intelligence, however, has been much slower than anticipated, and developments in
neuroscience, in artificial neural networks, and in dynamical and evolutionary
approaches to cognition and robotics, have caused some to question whether cognitive
science should remain committed to the computational theory of mind.
Course Description
In this course, students will learn about the original promise of the computational theory,
and how it provided an alternative to earlier philosophical and scientific views about the
relationship between mind and body. We will go on to consider the debate about
whether evolutionary, embodied, and dynamical systems approaches to cognitive
science amount to an overthrow of its traditional symbolic-representationalist core as
well as providing a philosophical challenge to our deep-seated conception of ourselves
as human agents with rational beliefs.
Course Objective
By the end of the course, students will be able to to evaluate and respond to
philosophical arguments in cognitive science.
Attendance/Class Participation Policy: Classes will involve a great deal of
participation. Thus, student participation and attendance is expected. You are expected
to have read the assignments and be ready to discuss the material in depth. Your
overall grade for the course will be lowered by a half letter grade for every unexcused
absence you have beyond three absences.

Assignments and Grading

This course is designated Intensive Writing (IW), which according to the faculty
handbook means, students must be required to write at least 5,000 words (roughly
20 typed pages), not counting revisions (and excluding essay examinations and
informal writing, e.g., journals or brief response statements). Students must receive
periodic evaluations of their writing, and they must be required to redraft one or more
papers in light of the instructors criticism. Ordinarily students will write a series of
papers over the course of a semester, not one long term paper.
There are no scheduled examinations, but there are six formal pieces of writing
required, and these will be extensively workshopped during discussion sections.
Discussion sections may also be used to clarify and extend the discussion of course

concepts.

IW assignments, specified in greater detail below are due by midnight on the

dates specified in the table below. All must be submitted via Oncourse.
Acceptable formats are pdf, rtf, .doc, and .docx.

All submissions should be double-spaced, 1-inch margins, and font size 10-12
points. Include a word count with your document.

All sources must be cited in an acceptable format (APA preferred). Also, if you
are unsure about what counts as plagiarism, take this tutorial and self-test.

Late submissions will incur a grade penalty of 1 point per 24 hrs. The writing
assignments are tightly integrated with the main lecture content and the topics
may not be fully covered in the readings alone, so attendance at all three
meetings each week is important.

Occasional classroom activities or pop quizzes on readings may be used without

warning to determine attendance and participation.

70% for the IW assignments, distributed as follows:

IW-1, due 01/30, 5%
IW-2, due 02/20, 10%
IW-3, due 03/13, 10%
IW-4, due 04/10, 15%
IW-5, due 04/24, 10%
IW-6, due 05/08, 20%
20% for initial office hours visit, responses to readings, including in-class assignments
which may not be announced in advance.
5% for mandatory meetings with IUB Writing Tutorial Services
5% for participation in discussions during class lecture and discussion periods.

Texts
For the discussion sections, there is one short required textbook. It is Lewis Vaughns
Writing Philosophy: A Students Guide to Writing Philosophy Essays.
For the main lecture sections, there are roughly two required readings per week. The

schedule below references the required readings. All required readings will be made
freely available via Oncourse.
The schedule also contains references to a textbook that covers some of the course
material, and is recommended reading. It is Andy Clark's Mindware 2nd Edition,
Oxford Univ. Press.
Schedule
Date

Week 1

Topic

Readings

Assignment details

Course Intro

01/12

Philosophy,
Science, and the
Philosophy of
Science

movie shown in class

01/14

What is (Philosophy Paul Thagards SEP

of) Cognitive
article on Cognitive
Science?
Science
[Mindware Preface,
Chapter 1, Appendix 1]

Article available here:

IW requirements
and strategies

Bring questions

01/16

Vaughn, Chapter 1.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitivescience/

Week 2
01/19

MLK Day

01/21

Physical Symbols
System Hypothesis

Allen Newell & Herbert

Simon (1975)
Computer Science as
empirical enquiry:
symbols and search
[Mindware 2.1]

01/23

Brainstorm IW-1

Vaughn, Chapter 2.
CA's guide to writing

No Class

Monty Python's argument clinic

philosophy papers

Week 3
01/26

Chinese Room

John Searle (1980)

Minds, Brains, and
Programs
[Mindware 2.2]

01/28

The Turing Test

Alan Turing (1950)

Computing Machinery
& Intelligence

Try out at least one of the Turing

Machine simulators linked at
Wikipedia and SEP.

01/30

Workshop IW-1

Vaughn, Chapter 3.

*IW-1 DUE*

Week 4

Dualism, or...?

02/02

Rationalists and
Empiricists

Rene Descartes (1641)

Meditations 1 and 2
David Hume (1777)
Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding
sections 2 and 3 (skip
sections 1, 4, and 5)
[Mindware 3]

02/04

Metaphors for Mind

I: Maps and Images

Edward Tolman (1948)

Cognitive maps in rats
in men
Roger Shepard &
Jacqueline Metzler
(1971) Mental rotation
of three-dimensional
objects

02/06

Knowing your
audience

Vaughn, Chapter 4

Week 5

Functionalism

Research age-appropriate vocabulary

lists/tools for 12 yr olds.

02/09

Functionalism

Janet Levins SEP entry

on Functionalism

02/11

More functionalism

review SEP article

02/13

IW-2 Analogy
Brainstorming

Vaughn, Chapter 5

Week 6

Rationalism v.
Empiricism Redux

02/16

Chomsky v. Skinner Noam Chomsky

(1959/1967) Review of
B.F. Skinners Verbal
Behavior

02/18

The Place of Folk

Psychology

Daniel Dennett (1981)

True believers

02/20

Workshop IW-2

Vaughn, Chapter 6

Week 7

Connectionism

02/23

Intro to
connectionism

Jim Garsons SEP entry

on Connectionism
[Mindware 4]

02/25

Eliminativism

William Ramsey,
Stephen Stich, &
Joseph Garon (1991)
Connectionism,
eliminativism, and the
future of folk
psychology

02/27

Workshop papers

Week 8

Bring your "2nd best" ideas

Levels of
Explanation

*IW-2 DUE*

03/02

Marr's 3 levels

Marr (1980) selection

from Vision

03/04

Multiple Realization

Figdor (2010)
Neuroscience and the
Multiple Realization of
Cognitive Functions

03/06

Workshop papers

Vaughn, Chapter 7

Week 9

Schedule appoint with IUB Writing

Tutorial Services

Evolution and Mind

03/09

Evolution and
Content

Ruth Millikan (1980)

Compare and Contrast
Dretske, Fodor, and
Millikan on
Teleosemantics

03/11

Robots

Inman Harvey et al.

(2005) Evolutionary
Robotics: A new
scientific tool for
studying cognition
[Mindware 6]

03/13

Workshop papers

Vaughn, Chapter 8

*IW-3 DUE*

Week 10

SPRING BREAK

SPRING BREAK

SPRING BREAK

Week 11

Embodied
Cognition

03/23

More robots

Rodney Brooks (1991)

Intelligence without
representation

[Mindware 5,6]
03/25

Embodiment

03/27

Brainstorm IW-4

Andy Clark (1998)

Embodiment and the
Philosophy of Mind
Schedule appoint with IUB Writing
Tutorial Services

Week 12

Dynamical Systems

03/30

Dynamical Systems

Beer (2000) Dynamical

approaches to cognitive
science
[Mindware 7]

04/01

Dynamical
Philosophy

Timothy van Gelder

(1995) What might
cognition be if not
computation?

04/03

tba

Week 13

tba

Mind Beyond Body

04/06

Extended Mind

Andy Clark and David

Chalmers (1998) The
Extended Mind
[Mindware 8]

04/08

Enaction

Marek McGann, Hanne

De Jaegher, Ezequiel di
Paolo (2013) Enaction
and Psychology
[Mindware 9]

04/10

Workshop IW-4

Week 14

Charting the
Revolution

*IW-4 DUE*

04/13

Group Mind

Georg Theiner, Colin

Allen and Rob
Goldstone (2010)
Recognizing Group
Cognition

04/15

Philosophy of
Cognitive Science
vs. Philosophy of
Mind

Tony Chemero and

Michael Silberstein
(2008) After philosophy
of mind: replacing
scholasticism with
science

04/17

BRAINSTORM IW5

Week 15

The Conservative
View

04/20

The conservative
view

Rob Rupert (2013)

Memory, natural kinds,
and cognitive extension

04/22

The conservative
view (continued)

Rupert (forthcoming)
Against group cognitive
states

04/24

Workshop IW-5

Week 16

*IW-5 DUE*

Theories of
Theories of mind

04/27

Theory-Theory vs.
Simulation Theory

Gallese and Goldman

(1998) Mirror Neurons
and the Simulation
Theory of MindReading

04/29

Animal Cognition

Call and Tomasello

(2008) Does the

Chimpanzee have a
theory of mind? 30
years later
05/01

Week 16

Workshop IW-6

Finals Week

05//08

Bring paper drafts

Last day of class

No classes
*IW-6 DUE*

IW Assignments
IW-1. Choose one of the "-isms" e.g., rationalism, dualism, or behaviorism -- that has
been discussed in lectures or readings, then (a) explain what it means and (b)
summarize the main arguments for and against it.

Due 01/30.

The audience for this paper is a friend or acquaintance who has not taken this
course. Do not be overly casual in your writing, but do focus on being clear,
concise, and accessible. Briefly explain any technical terms and avoid
unexplained jargon.

You are not expected to consult any sources beyond what we have covered in
class, but you are welcome to do so if you would like. Just make sure that you
cite any sources that you refer to in your writing.

A good secondary source for many of the topics we will cover this semester is the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For this paper, the most relevant entries
would be the SEP entry on dualism and behaviorism. You may also find related
items at the InPhO page for Cognitive Science.

If you do consult other sources, keep in mind that the terms "dualism",
"behaviorism", "functionalism", and "materialism", can mean different things to
people in different fields, even within philosophy and cognitive science. The kind
of dualism we have discussed is often referred to as Cartesian dualism, or mindbody dualism. The kind of behaviorism we've discussed is sometimes known as
methodological behaviorism, or, more generally, psychological behaviorism.
There is a distinct (but related) strand of behaviorism in philosophy, which was
prevalent around the same time as the psychological version. If you read the
appendix in Mindware, this is the sense in which "behaviorism" is used there.
Keep this in mind if you consult other sources, and stick to the kind of -ism that
we focused on in class.

Min. length: 600 words.

IW-2. Explain functionalism to a 6th grader. In doing so, be sure to address each of the
following:
1. What does functionalism claim about the nature of mental states?
2. How does the concept of the Turing machine relate to functionalism? In other
words, what role does the Turing machine play in the functionalist account of the
mind?

Due 02/20.

Cite all sources used, including any we read in class.

Min. length: 600 words.

IW-3. The early part of the course has dealt with a related setof questions, including:

Can machines think (understand, be intelligent, etc.)?

If so, what kind of machine? If not, then why not?

How can we judge whether a machine is intelligent (capable of thought,

understanding, etc.) or not? That is, what kind of evidence would should we use?

The assignment for this essay is to pick two of the readings to compare and contrast,
focusing on questions like the ones given above. On points where the two sides
disagree, explain which side you find more convincing. Note: The bullet-pointed
questions above are just meant as a guide. Depending on which pair of papers you
choose, you might focus more on one or two of these questions and less on the
other(s). Or you may find that there are other relevant questions or issues to focus on.
The organization of this essay is more open ended than on previous assignments.
However you choose to organize it, though, remember to be clear in terms of your
introduction, paragraphing, and transitions.

Due 03/13.

Include at least one specific reference (with page number) from each of the two
papers.

Cite your sources using APA or MLA formatting.

Min. length: 1000 words.

IW-4. One of the themes in philosophy of cognitive science concerns the relationship
between folk (or commonsense) psychology and scientific psychology (which, for our
purposes, can be taken to include neuroscience, much of AI, and much of cognitive
science in general). One way to understand this debate is in terms of the mind-body
problem, which has been a recurring thread throughout the semester. What is the

relationship between the mental realm and the physical realm (or are they identical)?
Do mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, and intentions) have "causal powers"? Why or
why not? Finally, what should be the relationship between folk psychology and
scientific psychology? Your assignment in this essay is to present your own argument
on some aspect of the folk psychology debate. That could mean addressing one of the
above questions, or it could mean focusing on another aspect of the recent material
(e.g.,the Dennett paper on the intentional stance, Ch.3 of Mindware, or even some
other relevant source, as long as you clear it first). Whatever the topic, make sure to
inlcude the following in your essay:
1. A clear, concise introductory paragraph that includes a statement of your thesis
and a brief overview of how you plan to support it
2. Two or three well-organized body paragraphs, each addressing a particular
aspect of your argument
3. A brief conclusion that revisits your thesis statement and (ideally) raises an
additional question or two for the reader to think about in light of your arguments.

Due 04/10

In contrast to the previous essays, you will need to formulate an argument of

your own rather than to explain or evaluate someone else's argument. However,
these tasks are not entirely unrelated, since one way to formulate a topic is to
take someone else's argument and look for ways to evaluate it, critique it, or
expand on it.

Min. length: 1000 words.

IW-5. Revision of earlier piece or draft of final piece. Choice must be pre-approved by
11/21.

Due 04/25.

Min. length 1200 words (does not count towards 5,000 word IW requirement).

IW-6. The assignment for the final paper is to write an argument-based (i.e., thesisbased) paper on a topic from the second half of the class, which means anything from
Week 9 onwards, including the following topics: evolutionary approaches to cognitive

science, embodied cognition, extended mind, dynamical systems approaches, etc.

(Any of the material from the Discussion sections of Mindware from Ch. 4-7 would be
fair game.)
You should have a discernible thesis that you back up with supporting arguments. For
example, you might pick something we've read or discussed that you disagree with and
want to argue against. Or you can pick something you agree with and argue for why you
think so-and-so is right. In either case, you would need to offer support for your
argument and also consider (and respond to) some potential counterarguments.

Due 05/08.

Min. length: 1500 words.

Writing Tutorial Services

For free help at any phase of the writing processfrom brainstorming to polishing the
final draftcall Writing Tutorial Services (WTS, pronounced wits) at 855-6738 for an
appointment. When you visit WTS, youll find a tutor who is a sympathetic and helpful
reader of your prose. To be assured of an appointment with the tutor who will know
most about your class, please call in advance. WTS, in the Information Commons on
the first floor of the Wells Library, is open Monday- Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
and Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Walk-in tutorials are available when WTS has an
opening, but the appointment book often fills in advance. WTS tutors are also available
for walk-in tutorials (only) in the Academic Support Centers in Briscoe, Forest, and
Teter residence halls, open Sunday-Thursday 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Statement for Students with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute that
provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among
other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a
learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities.
If you believe you have a disability requiring an accommodation, please contact IU
Disability Services for Students.
Statement about Academic Misconduct
University rules concerning academic misconduct will be rigorously enforced in this
class. See Section G of the IU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and
Conduct for details.