Download The cognitive science perspective on Converging

The cognitive science
perspective
on Converging Technologies
Daniel Andler
Department of cognitive science, Ecole normale supérieure
&
Department of philosophy, Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV)
1. What cognitive science isn’t
and what it is
• What cognitive science is not:
the/a science of ‘knowledge,’ as in the ‘knowledge society’
• It is narrower:
It is concerned only with the most basic and general aspects of
knowledge, as a state in which an organism can find itself under
certain circumstances (what distinctive sort of state? which
circumstances?)
• It is broader:
Knowledge is but one special case within the huge space of possible
states of an organism which cogsci wants to investigate.
What cognitive science is
• The science of mind (processes, functions,
components)
• (Something akin to) psychology
• But
freed from some of the constraints operating on
previous paradigms in psychology;
transformed (transfigured?) by the intervention of
disciplines with equally strong claims to a
‘window’ on the mind
What disciplines?
•
•
•
•
•
•
The formal sciences
Psychology
Neuroscience
Linguistics
Philosophy
The social sciences
1956-2004: the transformation of
cognitive science
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Artificial intelligence (AI) no longer central, and blends into an array of modelling
techniques.
Neuroscience claims leadership.
Cognitive psychology expands (from cold, normal, adult, individual cognition to
hot, impaired, developing and/or social cognition); partly fuses with
neuroscience: cognitive neuroscience, with quasi-compulsory recourse to
functional brain imagery.
Linguistics expands (several paradigms; also historical and comparative).
Philosophy expands (huge increase, many more themes, phenomenology
contributes...).
Economics, social psychology, sociology undergo a cognitive turn.
Evolutionary thinking becomes prevalent.
Psychiatry, medecine, law, art, science (as process) become topics for cogsci.
Cognitive science and CTEKS
• Cogsci, purporting to be the science of man as
cognitive system, all but surrounds the target of CT.
• Cogsci/CT = Pure science/Applied science?
or
Science / Technology?
• Not always: in some cases, the specific cognitive
properties are filtered out; also, areas such as health
and environment are only indirectly connected to
human cognition.
Import of cogsci on specific areas
of CT
• Information science: AI broadly construed (incl. HCI,
human-centered computing, cognitive engineering,
and the standards–NLP, computer-aided decision,
design, instruction..., artificial vision, classical
robotics)
• Neuroscience: integrative NS and (indirectly) cellular
and molecular, pharmacology, medecine
• (Combining IS and NS) Neurocomputing, tools and
foundations of brain imagery, neurobotics, neural
chips, implants, prostheses)
Implication of cogsci in CTEKS
at the general level
• Why it is important: Human-centered orientation =
CTs for wo/man. De-emphasing the artefact, reemphasing its use and effects on human life.
• What it contributes: The scientific stance as
(i) enhancing chances of success in the long run; (ii)
only protection against permanent threat of unwanted
consequences, perverse effects, irreversible damage.
What does the scientific stance
result in?
• It creates a scientific image, distinct from the manifest
image (Wilfrid Sellars’s phrases).
• The notion that there is such a thing as a scientific
image, and that it may be at considerable variance
with the manifest image, is a familiar and wellaccepted idea regarding ‘natural’
phenomena/entities.
• By contrast, it is unpopular as regards human realm.
The very idea of ‘naturalisation’ is deeply unsettling to
some.
(1+1) +1 kinds of psychology
• Psychology (in any sense) as knowledge of our
‘mental toolkit’, ‘cognitive apparatus’, tacit knowledge,
skills, know-how...
• Psychology-1: ‘naive’, lay, spontaneously acquired
through unsystematic reflection, informal education...
• Psychology-2: learned, systematic, philosophical,
deliberately acquired and transmitted by the means
of higher culture
• Psychology-1+2: commonsense psychology (two
intermingled layers)
• Psychology-3: scientific
Which kind of psychology
works for what ?
• Commonsense psychology generally good for
everyday dealings with world/people, thanks
presumably to natural selection (of psychology-1) and
cultural selection (of psychology-2).
• How good is it beyond those tasks?
The bone of contention
• Opinion A: Commonsense psychology (possibly
systematized) is all we need [all we have, adds the
skeptic] in all circumstances and for all applications.
• Opinion B: Commonsense psychology, though
successful in some areas, fails drastically in others
[and there is something to put in its place, pace the
skeptic].
Areas where CS fails
and S may succeed
• Cases where CS doesn’t have a clue:
‘subpersonal’, nonconscious processes;
• Cases where CS is suspected of being prey
to a massive misconception;
• Cases where CS is promoted out of its depth:
non-‘ecological’ situations (natural/cultural
boundaries crossed: complex systems,
blackberry syndrom in adv’d countries, hightech in traditional cultures, etc.)
Does anyone defend Opinion A?
• Yes!
• Who?
• A large part of social science
• A large part of the IT community
• A large part of the general public
• A large proportion of decision-makers
Why is Opinion A so entrenched?
• Superficial systematization or formalization, giving an
impression of scientificity which mercifully preserves
the manifest image and makes it seem as if it can do
the work.
• The tabula rasa/constructivist thesis: man has no
nature, and can be taught / enculturated into (just
about) anything.
• The fear of losing something essential by letting the
scientific image replace the manifest image.
The fundamental contribution of
cognitive science
• The very idea of a texture of the human mind.
• Pretty solid evidence that this texture is fairly
specific, so that not everything goes (can be
learned or assimilated by culture), for reasons
going beyond mere quantitative limits
(resources, memory, attention-span, lifespan, noise...).
• A growing body of scientific knowledge about
that texture.
What about the social
dimension?
• Cognitive science must and can provide the
social sciences a manageable summary of
the texture of the mind, relevant to their goals.
• Cognitive science directly contributes to the
understanding of man as social being:
• social cognition
• distributed cognition
Why is the social-cognitive
interface so important to
CTEKS?
• CTs, if as successful as we hope (/fear), will
presumably profoundly affect some of our
notions and practices regarding self/others,
human/humanoid, real/virtual, communities,
constituencies, networks...
• CTs, if insufficiently informed by socialcognitive science, run the risk of perverse
effects, misuse or rejection.
What can CTEKS do for
cognitive science?
• In general, technology is ahead of science on
some fronts, and directly taps commonsense,
skills, tacit knowledge; thus providing
motivation and heuristics to fundamental
science.
• Specifically, CT can direct cognitive science
towards socially essential issues, and
enforce a higher degree of precision and
operativity.
Scientistic threat on humankind?
It may be thought that
• if CT rests on a well-developed cognitive science
• and cognitive science is naturalistic and
reductionistic,
• then CT will contribute to the dehumanisation of
our lives.
Scientistic threat...
But that is a big mistake:
• the clearer our scientific image becomes, the
better our chances of discovering human solutions
• pursuing the scientific image does not mean giving
up on the manifest image, nor renouncing tacit
knowledge, skills and know-how to develop and
refine our technological toolbox.