Psyc DB6

.docx

School

Fayetteville State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

421

Subject

Electrical Engineering

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by JudgeMouseMaster848

Report
PSYC421.D1 DB6 What is the central claim of the dynamical systems hypothesis? How plausible do you find it? In chapter 6 readings, Bermudez states that the dynamical systems hypothesis demands that cognitive science be liberated from its dependence on concepts of representation and computation. The primary principle of the dynamical systems hypothesis is that complex patterns and behaviors found in nature, such as those found in the brain and human cognition, may be understood by looking at the interactions and alterations within dynamic systems. These systems operate like complex machines where the interactions between different parts produce complex and unpredictable results. According to this theory, rather than attempting to reduce things to straightforward, linear cause and effect relationships, we should consider how various factors interact and change over time to produce the behavior we observe. This claim's plausibility is widely acknowledged in a number of scientific disciplines, including physics, biology, and cognitive science. It has been effective in describing phenomena like weather patterns, ecological systems, and even some aspects of human mind. However, its value may change based on the particular environment and system being studied. Sometimes, cause-and-effect theories that are more straightforward might be more correct. So while it's a helpful tool, it's not a universal explanation for everything in the world. How does the example of the Watt governor make Van Gelder’s point. The example of the Watt governor helps illustrate Van Gelder’s point about the dynamical systems hypothesis. The Watt governor was a device used in steam engines long ago. It controlled the engine’s speed by adjusting a valve based on how fast the engine was running. When the engine sped up, the governor would move to close the valve, and when it slowed down, the governor would open it more. This example shows how a simple mechanical system, like the Watt governor, can create complex and precise control over a dynamic process. It demonstrates that by understanding how different parts of system interact and respond to changes, we can achieve stability and control in a much more sophisticated way than by trying t control each part separately. Van Gelder’s point is that this idea extends beyond steam engines and can be applied to many complex systems in nature, from the brain to ecosystems. By studying how elements in these systems interact dynamically, we can gain a deeper understanding of how they work and how to control or influence them effectively. Dynamical models seem suited for examining the development of skills like walking. Will dynamical modeling prove fruitful for other phenomena of interest in cognitive science? By identifying the various aspects that contribute to the development of the ability, dynamic modelling can indeed help to explain how skills develop. For instance, a dynamic model of the development of walking might consider the person's muscle strength, balance, and coordination in addition to external elements like the surface they are walking on. The model can help to explain how the person is able to develop the skill of walking by taking into consideration all these aspects. The development of other skills outside walking can be studied using dynamic modeling. For instance, a dynamic model of the evolution of reading might take into account a person's visual acuity, phonemic awareness, and working memory in addition to external influences like the sort of text being read. The model can help to explain
how the person is able to improve the skill of reading by taking all these elements into consideration. Another illustration of how dynamical modeling aids in our understanding of how individuals think, decide, and even change emotionally over time. It's an effective instrument that enables researchers to understand the intricate relationships between the dynamics of the brain and behavior, which may result in new scientific understandings and discoveries. Are there any other plausible cognitive explanations of the A-not-B error? Infants go through a stage of cognitive development where the A-not-B mistake is a phenomenon. As opposed to where it was most recently hidden (B location), newborns tend to reach for objects in the places where they have previously found them (A location). While the usual explanation for this error is based on cognitive development and relates it to infants' incapacity to understand that things may move positions, there are also additional logical cognitive reasons. Motor Memory: Rather than being a purely cognitive issue, some researchers have suggested that the A-not-B error may be tied to motor memory and the infants' motor activities. Another theory focuses on how infants establish their inhibitory control. It implies that even when they are aware that the object is in location B, newborns may have trouble controlling their want to reach location A. Dual-Representation Theory According to the dual- representation theory, newborns may represent items both as an outward object and as a mental representation. It suggests that the A-not-B error might be caused by newborns' inability to coordinate these dual representations. The A-not-B error probably involves a combination of cognitive, motor, attentional, and social components. It's crucial to emphasize that these alternate hypotheses are not mutually incompatible. Bermúdez, J. L. (2020). Cognitive science: An introduction to the science of the mind (3rd). Cambridge University Press. Dynamical systems theory in Cognitive Science and Neuroscience. (n.d.). https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12695
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help