Reading Guide: David Chalmers, "A Computational Foundation for the Study
of Cognition"
Take a deep breath.
Spend some time on the second paragraph of the long abstract--this is
where he tells us what he's going to do. Remember that he's going to try
make an argument (or a few of them). See if you can give an outline, from
the abstract, of what the structure of this argument will be. Even if
you're not sure what each step means, you should be able to tell
from his language how he's going to try to string ideas together.
Introduction
What does he mean by computational sufficiency? Do you have an idea
of what he means by "computational structure"? (If not, you can hope he'll
provide some more detail later in the paper.)
What is computational explanation?
Does his explanation of the controversy around these ideas help you
understand them more fully?
In the fourth paragraph, why is he so concerned with
implementation? Can you tell what Searle thinks? Why does Chalmers
call Searle pessimistic?
A Theory of Implementation
The first part of this section (up until subsection 2.2) is pretty
abstract; it's OK just to skim it on your first reading and jump to 2.2.
2.2 Questions answered
What is "isomorphism"? What does he mean by "formal structure" and "causal
structure"?
For each of the questions he answers in this section, explain why it's
important to ask the question.
Right at the end of this section, he makes a clear distinction between
"brain" and "computer." Explain what this distinction is and why it's
important.
Computation and cognition
In the second paragraph, he says, "Causal organization is the nexus
between computation and cognition." What does that mean?
Organizational invariance
Try to come with a few more examples of properties that are not
organizational invariants (maybe we'll discuss a few in class).
The organizational invariance of mental properties
Restate Chalmers's distinction between psychological and
<>phenomenal properties. Why does he make this distinction? Do you
think it works?
Justifying the theses
Summarize the idea of "strong artificial intelligence."
Some objections
Chalmers says his argument so far shows that "It follows that a model
that is computationally equivalent to a mind will itself be a mind." Do
you agree that this is the implication of his argument?
Note that the discussion of "syntax and semantics" has a useful discussion
of causation
Can you think of objections to Chalmers' argument beyond those he
addresses in this paper?
Other kinds of computationalism
How does symbolic computationalism differ from the idea Chalmers is
presenting?
Conclusion: Toward a minimal computationalism
Why does he call his view minimal computationalism?
Whew.