Oh crap. Re-thinking van Gelder (A purple peril)

I have this problem where I like pretty much everything William Bechtel writes except when it pertains to cognitive science. It's annoying because, even when I disagree with him, I think he's worth taking seriously. This was on my mind when I started reading is 1998 paper, "Representations and cognitive explanations: Assessing the dynamicist's challenge in cognitive science."

In this paper, Bechtel critiques van Gelder's construal of the Watt's governor as an exemplar of how cognition could function without representations. I have always liked van Gelder's argument and wrote about it years ago in very favorable terms. I wouldn't say that I don't like it anymore, but Bechtel may have convinced me that one of van Gelder's central claims - that representations don't feature in explanations of the Watt governor - is incorrect. Does this mean that I now think that cognition requires internal representations? No! But, the language Bechtel uses to assess van Gelder's arguments sounded eerily familiar and I realized that the criteria used to label something as a representation are met by...ecological information.

What else could it be? The case of the centrifugal govenor.

Previously, I’ve dismissed the idea of mental representation because 1) no one knows what a representation is and 2) the arguments for representation tend to be pretty weak. Now, I’d like to spend a bit of time discussing a possible alternative – a dynamical systems approach to cognition. To frame this discussion, I’m going to summarise a very handy philosophy paper by Van Gelder (1995) in which he distinguishes between a computational and dynamical solution to a particular problem (see also Andrew's post on the polar planimeter). Van Gelder has clearly picked a side - that cognition emerges from dynamical systems and that cognitive processes are evolutions in the state-space within these systems. One of the main arguments for computation is that it’s difficult to imagine what else could be going on (see footnotes p. 346 for references for this argument). So, Van Gelder wrote this paper,  not to decisively rule out computation, but to provide an answer to the question “what else could [cognition] be?”