Click here and press the right key for the next slide.
(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)
also ...
Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)
Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)
Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)
Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts
Origins of Mind : 06
s.butterfill & [email protected]
When and how do humans first come to know simple facts about particular physical objects?
What have we found so far?
Three requirements
Principles of Object Perception
Spelke, 1990
three requirements, one set of principles
Three Questions
1. How do four-month-old infants model physical objects?
2. What is the relation between the model and the infants?
3. What is the relation between the model and the things modelled (physical objects)?
What have we found so far? ... Apparently conflicting evidence.
Baillargeon et al 1987, figure 1
Shinskey and Munakata 2001, figure 1
occlusion | endarkening | |
violation-of-expectations | ✔ | ✘ |
manual search | ✘ | ✔ |
Charles & Rivera (2009)
Spelke et al 1992, figure 2
Hood et al 2003, figure 1
Three Questions
1. How do four-month-old infants model physical objects?
2. What is the relation between the model and the infants?
3. What is the relation between the model and the things modelled (physical objects)?
Two Candidate Answers to Q2
the Simple View ... generates incorrect predictions
the Core Knowledge View
Q1 What is the nature of infants’ earliest cognition of physical objects?
‘there is a third type of conceptual structure,
dubbed “core knowledge” ...
that differs systematically from both
sensory/perceptual representation[s] ... and ... knowledge.’
Carey, 2009 p. 10
Crude Picture of the Mind
Q1 What is the nature of infants’ earliest cognition of physical objects?
‘there is a third type of conceptual structure,
dubbed “core knowledge” ...
that differs systematically from both
sensory/perceptual representation[s] ... and ... knowledge.’
Carey, 2009 p. 10
core knowledge / core system
‘Just as humans are endowed with multiple, specialized perceptual systems, so we are endowed with multiple systems for representing and reasoning about entities of different kinds.’
Carey and Spelke, 1996 p. 517
‘core systems are
(Carey and Spelke 1996: 520)
representational format: iconic (Carey 2009)
Why postulate core knowledge?
The Simple View
The Core Knowledge View
domain | evidence for knowledge in infancy | evidence against knowledge |
colour | categories used in learning labels & functions | failure to use colour as a dimension in ‘same as’ judgements |
physical objects | patterns of dishabituation and anticipatory looking | unreflected in planned action (may influence online control) |
number | --""-- | --""-- |
syntax | anticipatory looking | [as adults] |
minds | reflected in anticipatory looking, communication, &c | not reflected in judgements about action, desire, ... |
Why postulate core knowledge?
The Simple View
The Core Knowledge View
‘Just as humans are endowed with multiple, specialized perceptual systems, so we are endowed with multiple systems for representing and reasoning about entities of different kinds.’
Carey and Spelke, 1996 p. 517
‘core systems are
(Carey and Spelke 1996: 520)
representational format: iconic (Carey 2009)
multiple definitions
‘there is a paucity of … data to suggest that they are the only or the best way of carving up the processing,
‘and it seems doubtful that the often long lists of correlated attributes should come as a package’
Adolphs (2010 p. 759)
‘we wonder whether the dichotomous characteristics used to define the two-system models are … perfectly correlated …
[and] whether a hybrid system that combines characteristics from both systems could not be … viable’
Keren and Schul (2009, p. 537)
‘the process architecture of social cognition is still very much in need of a detailed theory’
Adolphs (2010 p. 759)
Is definition by listing features (a) justified, and is it (b) compatible with the claim that core knowledge is explanatory?
Why do we need a notion like core knowledge?
domain | evidence for knowledge in infancy | evidence against knowledge |
colour | categories used in learning labels & functions | failure to use colour as a dimension in ‘same as’ judgements |
physical objects | patterns of dishabituation and anticipatory looking | unreflected in planned action (may influence online control) |
number | --""-- | --""-- |
syntax | anticipatory looking | [as adults] |
minds | reflected in anticipatory looking, communication, &c | not reflected in judgements about action, desire, ... |
occlusion | endarkening | |
violation-of-expectations | ✔ | ✘ |
manual search | ✘ | ✔ |
Charles & Rivera (2009)
If this is what core knowledge is for, what features must core knowledge have?
‘Just as humans are endowed with multiple, specialized perceptual systems, so we are endowed with multiple systems for representing and reasoning about entities of different kinds.’
Carey and Spelke, 1996 p. 517
‘core systems are
(Carey and Spelke 1996: 520)
representational format: iconic (Carey 2009)
If this is what core knowledge is for, what features must core knowledge have?
not being knowledge
objections to the Core Knowledge View:
The Core Knowledge View
generates
no
relevant predictions.