cognitive science 50 years symposium

Cognitive Science 50 years symposium

The Cognitive Science Unit of the Helsinki University celebrated the

past 50 years of cognitive science with a symposium. In a panel

discussion titled "Theoretical and Historical Foundations of Cognitive

Science" professors Peter G�rdenfors (Lund University), Timo Kaitaro

(University of Helsinki) and G�te Nyman (University of Helsinki)

discussed the paradigms of cognitive science in the past decades and

their influences to the current and future directions. The session was

chaired by Pauli Brattico.

The session began with a discussion of the origin of the computer

metaphor of the brain -- the notion that the brain could essentially

be described as a machine executing symbol manipulation tasks and

algorithms to process input information as computers do. The computer

metaphor and the 'cognitive psychology revolution' of the 1950s was

seen as a counter reaction to behaviorism -- which in turn was a

counter reaction to the earlier paradigm of German introspective

psychology.

In addition to being a relatively new area of science, cognitive

science has a distinct feature of having multiple, often

contradictory, views on the roles of learning and adaptation (as

opposed to innate structures) and statistical information processing

(as opposed to symbol manipulation).

Brattico asked each of the panelists to give their take on whether

symbol manipulation has a role in human cognition. All three panelists

were quite sceptical about symbol manipulation taking place in the

mechanisms of the brain although the brain is able to solve symbol

manipulation tasks. Quoting Timo Kaitaro - 'Does symbol manipulation

occur? Yes. Does it happen in the brain? No.'

Later questions asked the panelists to elaborate what the next 50

years of cognitive science could be like. G�rdenfors' answer to this

was the expansion of the concept 'cognition' outside the brain organ

to consider the important components of embodiment and cultural

interaction. Also, G�rdenfors noted that 'the mind' might not be a

good term to use anymore as a separate entity as there is no clear

border between the cognition 'leaking out' of the brain into the

environment.

An interesting question left without a good answer was the nature of

robots and computational cognitive systems of the future. G�te Nyman's

opinion was that there is no need for computational systems to be very

human-like to serve humans similarly as we don't need airplanes to

look like birds. Nyman also emphasized the role of a more complex

top-down system model of human cognition.

But does this apply in cases where human-computer interaction would

require skills which are generally thought to be possible only for

humans, such as natural language processing/learning or image

segmentation?

When asked to select a single central question yet to be answered in

the next 50 years of cognitive science, Kaitaro presented the question

of the connection of biology and cognition and whether cognition could

ever be isolated from the biological realm. G�rdenfors' question was