Role of Logic in Cognitive Science

Balcerak, Paweł

doi:10.2478/sh-2018-0002

Abstract

In their work McCulloch and Pitts describe an idea of representing all of nervous activity in terms of propositional logic. This idea was quickly challenged. One of reasons for this challenge was rising believe that logic is unable to describe most of human cognitive processes. In this paper we will analyse premises of original McCulloch and Pitts proposition. Following that, we will ask about ability of symbolic (logical) systems to represent human cognition. We will finish by analysing relation between symbolic and subsymbolic computing, in hope of bridging the gap between the two.

References

1. Anderson, J. R. & C. Lebiere. The Atomic Components of Thought, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Balkenius, C. & P. Gärdenfors. Nonmonotonic inferences in neural networks, In J. Allen, R. Fikes, & W. Sandewall (eds.), Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1991, pp. 32-39.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Davidson, D. Inquiries into truth and interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Dennett, D. Brainstorms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1978.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Evans, J. St. B.T. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 2003, pp. 454-459.10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Fodor, J. A. & Z. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis, Cognition, 28, 1988, pp. 3-71.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Gärdenfors, P. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Griggs, R. A. & J. R. Cox. The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason’s selection task, British Journal of Psychology, 73, 1982, pp. 407-420.10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01823.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Hölldobler, S. & Y. Kalinke. Toward a new massively parallel computational model for logic programming, In Proc. Workshop on Combining Symbolic and Connectionist Processing, ECAI-94, Amsterdam, 1994.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Immerman, N. Descriptive complexity, New York: Springer Verlag, 1999.10.1007/978-1-4612-0539-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., & M. S., Legrenzi. Reasoning and a sense of reality, British Journal of Psychology, 63, 1972, pp. 395-400.10.1111/j.2044-8295.1972.tb01287.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Kleene, S. Representation of events in nerve nets and finite automata, In C. Shannon & J. McCarthy (eds.), Automata Studies, 1956, pp. 3-42.10.1515/9781400882618-002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Leitgeb, H. Nonmonotonic reasoning by inhibition nets, Artificial Intelligence, 128 (1-2), 2001, pp. 161-201.10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00073-X
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Leitgeb, H. Nonmonotonic reasoning by inhibition nets II, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 11 (2 (Supplement)), 2003, pp. 105-135.10.1142/S0218488503002454
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Leitgeb, H. Interpreted dynamical systems and qualitative laws: From neural networks to evolutionary systems, Synthese, 146, 2005, pp. 189-202.10.1007/s11229-005-9086-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. McCulloch, W. S. & W. H. Pitts. A Logical Calculus Immanent in Nervous Activity, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 1943, pp. 115-133.10.1007/BF02478259
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Oaksford, M. & M. Chater. The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science, Oxford University Press, 2008.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524496.003.0004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (ed.) The Robot’s Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Ablex, 1987.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Quine, W. V. O. Word and object, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Shoham, Y. A Semantical Approach to Nonmonotonic Logics, In M. L. Ginsberg, (ed.), Readings in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1987, pp. 227-249.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Stenning, K. & M. van Lambalgen. Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science, Los Altos, CA: MIT Press, 2008.10.7551/mitpress/7964.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Turing, A. M. Computing machinery and intelligence, Mind, 59, 1950, pp. 433-460.10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Wason, P. C. Reasoning about a rule, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 1968, pp. 273-281.10.1080/146407468084001615683766
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Wason, P. C. & D. Shapiro. Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 1971, pp. 63-71.10.1080/00335557143000068
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Wermter, S. & R. Sun (ed.) Hybrid Neural Systems, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2000.10.1007/10719871
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Role of Logic in Cognitive Science

Abstract

Paradigm

My account