PHIL 7450  Philosophy and Cognitive Science: Modularity, Attention and Intelligence
Spring 2008                                                                                                                                                                                

 

Instructor:           Dr. Stephen Downes

                                               581-6094

                                               s.downes@utah.edu

                        www.philosophy.utah.edu/faculty/downes/index.html

 

Dr. Ron Mallon

                                               585-5810

                                               rmallon@philosophy.utah.edu

                                               www.hum.utah.edu/~rmallon

 

Office

Hours:                        Downes: Thursday 11AM-12 Noon.

Mallon: Thursday 11AM-12 Noon.

Or by Appt.

 

Texts:                          The Modularity of Mind by Jerry Fodor.

Reserve readings (paper reserve or online) as assigned.

 


Description.
This course critically assesses so called "horizontal" faculties such as attention, the conscious will, and intelligence.  In the early 1980's Jerry Fodor made a strong case for important components of cognitive architecture being "modular" - having a suite of properties including being automatic, domain specific, and informationally autonomous - but Fodor maintained that so-called "central systems" (which, he thought, are the seat of knowledge and rational thought) were nonmodular.  Since then, many theorists have extended the scope of modularity well into these "central systems." 

     At the extreme, these so-called "massive modularity" approaches defend the position that most or all cognitive activity is served by modular processes.  One response to massive modularity is to ask whether there is any room in such a cognitive system for nondomain specific faculties such as attention, the conscious "will," and intelligence.  These seem to be attributes of our cognitive make-up that operates across many domains.  We will first set up Fodor's view and then the massive modularity view.  We next look at methodology in contemporary philosophy of cognitive science.  We then turn to some problem cases of cognitive activity in which attention is given a large role by cognitive psychologists.  Here we look at dual process theories, first in the context of moral psychology and then in the context of the psychology of reason.  We also consider recent empirical work on the conscious will.  We then turn to attention the non-modular process par excellence.  We finish up the course by examining theories of general intelligence, another research topic that sits uneasily with the massive modularity view.

Books.

J. A. Fodor The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press.
All other readings on reserve or online.

Topics.

January 10:            Introduction and Discussion of Fodorian Modularity

Downes's Slides on Fodor HERE


January 17:             1.  Modularity of Mind (continued)

Read Fodor's "Central Systems" and "Caveats and Conclusions" MOM 101-129

 

Recommended reading by Steve Downes on another analogy between science and psychology.


January 24:             2.  Evolutionary Psychology and Massive Modularity

Tooby and Cosmides From Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology D.Buss (Ed.) pgs 5-67
Daniel Sperber, "The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations"

January 31:            3.  Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology

Richard Samuels, "Evolutionary Psychology and the Massive Modularity Hypothesis" BJPS 49 575-602  Online
David Buller  From Adapting Minds (2005) pgs. 144-200

February 7:            4.  A Case Study in Boxes and Arrows

Nichols and Stich Mindreading (2003)  Introduction pgs. 1-15 and Nichols and Stich "A cognitive theory of pretense,' Cognition, 74: 115-47  Online

February 14:        5.  Attention

Strayer and Drews "Attention" in the Handbook of Applied Cognition (2nd Edition) F.Durso (Ed.) (2007).

Online
Scholl, Brian "Objects and Attention: The State of the Art"  Online

 

Daniel Kahneman On Reserve

February 21:        6.  Dual Process Theories: Moral and Social Psychology

Haidt, J. (2001). "The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment " Psychological Review 108: 814-834.   Online (And here is a prepublication version.)
Bargh, J. and T. L. Chartrand (1999). "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being." American Psychologist 54: 462-479. Online

 

February 28:        7.  Conscious will and self-regulation

Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, M. Muraven and D. M. Tice (1998). "Ego Depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1252-1265. Online
Muraven, M., D. M. Tice and R. F. Baumeister (1998). "Self Control as a Limited Resource: Regulatory Depletion Patterns." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 774-789. Online
Roy F. Baumeister, Matthew Gailliot, C. Nathan DeWall, Megan Oaten (2006)
Self-Regulation and Personality: How Interventions Increase Regulatory Success, and How Depletion Moderates the Effects of Traits on Behavior  Journal of Personality 74 (6), 1773–1802.  Online

March 6:                    8.  Dual Process Theories: Reasoning

Kahneman and Tversky selections Chps. 1, 34 and 35 (pgs. 3-20 and 493-520)
Stanovich on dual process, Chp. 2 of The Robot's Rebellion

March 14: Dept Colloquium (required for class)
Spring Break March 17th to 22nd
=================================================================March 26:                9. Dual Process Theories: Reasoning 2

K. Stanovich Who is Rational? (1999) Chs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (pgs. 1-52 and 142-207).

April 3:   10.  Intelligence 1

 

Bartholomew, Ebook:  Read Ch's 1 and 10 Online

 

April 10: 11.  Intelligence 2

Arthur Jensen Reading

Reading on Flynn effect

 

April 17: 12.  IQ and Race
Henry Harpending, "The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"

For Fun: New York Mag Article Online

Ned Block, "How Heritability Misleads About Race" Online

Nevin Sesardic Readings

 

Learning Objectives.

Students will learn some of the basic and recent findings in some key areas of cognitive science research.  Students will also learn how to do philosophy of cognitive science, which involves both the critical scrutiny of theoretical claims in cognitive science an the presentation and defense of new, testable theses about our cognitive faculties.  Students will also be introduced to standards of professional practice in philosophy (e.g. how to deliver talks/presentations and how to write papers for publication).

Requirements.

Attendance is required and coming to class having read the required material and being ready to discuss that material is also required.  Students will be required to give at least one in class presentation, attend the Philosophy Department Annual Colloquium, hand in several short written assignments and one long paper, presented first in draft form and again at the end of the semester in final form.  Written work required for this course will total 25 pages or more.

Rough draft of long paper due March 27th

Final draft of long paper due April 24th.

No late papers will be accepted without prior arrangement.

Grades Assessed as follows:

Attendance and contributions to class discussion      10%
Presentation(s)                                                           15%
Short written assignments                                         10%
Colloquium report                                                      5%
Rough draft of long paper                                         25%
Final draft of long paper                                           35%

The Graduate School considers a student in good standing if they maintain an average GPA of 3.0 or above.  The graduate school does not accept courses with grades of C- or below.  You must have a B+ or above in a course that you want to count for a Philosophy Ph.D. area requirement.  The following is a rough guide to our grading policy:

A   All high quality graduate level work and any better work (e.g. publishable!).
A-  All good graduate level work.
B+  Satisfactory graduate level work.
B    Fair graduate level work, which may suffice as good undergraduate work.
B-   Not quite up to graduate standard.
Grades of C+ and below are assigned to poor work.

General University Requirements

The University of  Utah seeks to provide equal access to its programs, services and activities for people with disabilities.  If you will need accommodations in this class, reasonable prior notice needs to be given to the Center for Disability Services, 162 Olpin Union Building, 581-5020 (V/TDD).  CDS will work with you and the instructor to make arrangements and accommodations.

     All written information in this course can be made available in alternative formats with prior notification to the Center for Disability Services.

Attendance Policy

University of Utah attendance policy can be found here: http://www.acs.utah.edu/sched/handbook/attend.htm

Drop/Withdrawal Policy

Classes dropped by the 10th calendar day of the semester are deleted from
students' records and no tuition is charged. Students may withdraw from a full term course without the instructor or dean's permission until the midpoint of the semester as published on the academic calendar.  To withdraw, students must log into the Campus Information System. A "W" grade will be recorded on students' academic record if he or she withdraws.  After the withdrawal deadline, students may petition for withdrawal if they have a nonacademic emergency. Students must submit a petition and supporting documentation to the office of the dean of their academic college. Undeclared, non-matriculated and pre-major students apply to the University College. Students must submit the petition to the appropriate dean's office by the last day of regular course instruction preceding the final exam period.

Cheating

Handing in any work other than your own, for example, an online or file paper, constitutes cheating. Handing in papers previously submitted for other classes also constitutes cheating. If you are discovered doing any of these things, you will receive a failing grade for the relevant assignment.  If you are discovered cheating again you will automatically fail the class and will be reported to the University for academic misconduct.

The web provides many opportunities for research but also provides many temptations. In this class you need no online resources other than electronic resources linked from this course web site.  Quotation of web resources without proper citation constitutes plagiarism and is a form of cheating.

The University Student Code Discusses both Cheating and Plagiarism: ÒCheatingÓ involves the unauthorized possession or use of information, materials, notes, study aids, or other devices in any academic exercise, or the unauthorized communication with another person during such an exercise.

Common examples of cheating include, but are not limited to, copying from another student's examination, submitting work for an in-class exam that has been prepared in advance, violating rules governing the administration of exams, having another person take an exam, altering one's work after the work has been returned and before resubmitting it, or violating any rules relating to academic conduct of a course or program.
(Student Code I B 2.a, http://www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual/8/8-10.html )

ÒPlagiarismÓ means the intentional unacknowledged use or incorporation of any other person's work in, or as a basis for, one's own work offered for academic consideration or credit or for public presentation. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, representing as one's own, without attribution, any other individualÕs words, phrasing, ideas, sequence of ideas, information or any other mode or content of expression. (Student Code I B 2.c, http://www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual/8/8-10.html )