Arthur B. Markman (1998) How to Conclude There are Rules in the Head . Psycoloquy: 9(72) Representation Mediation (11)
Versions: ASCII formatted
Psycoloquy 9(72): How to Conclude There are Rules in the Head

HOW TO CONCLUDE THERE ARE RULES IN THE HEAD
Reply to Garnham on Representation-Mediation

Arthur B. Markman
Department of Psychology
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/Markman/index.html

Eric Dietrich
PACCS Program
Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY
http://www.binghamton.edu/philosophy/home/faculty/index.htm

markman@psy.utexas.edu dietrich@binghamton.edu

Abstract

There is much food for thought in Garnham's (1998) commentary on our target article (Markman & Dietrich, 1998). Garnham objects to our endorsement of rule-governed mediating states. While he allows for using such states when describing cognitive capacities, he urges us, and all of cognitive science, to eschew rules as actual generators of behavior. Apparently, rules, for Garnham, are theoretical fictions like perfectly elastic balls and frictionless surfaces. We disagree with him on this point. Our interpretation of the relevant psychological data is that there are probably some rules that generate some behavior. Furthermore, given that there are rules that can be used to describe a certain kind of behavior, and given that other related processes are also in evidence, postulating that the rules are real and actually generate the behavior is indeed warranted.

Keywords

compositionality, computation, connectionism, discrete states, dynamic Systems, explanation, information, meaning, mediating states, representation, rules, semantic Content symbols

References