The Problem of Implementation and its Relation to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science

According to certain arguments, computation is observer-relative either in the sense that many physical systems implement many computations (Hilary Putnam), or in the sense that almost all physical systems implement all computations (John Searle). If sound, these arguments have a potentially devastating consequence for the computational theory of mind: if arbitrary physical systems can be seen to implement arbitrary computations, the notion of computation seems to lose all explanatory power as far as brains and minds are concerned. David Chalmers and B. Jack Copeland have attempted to counter these relativist arguments by placing certain constraints on the definition of implementation. In this thesis, I examine their proposals and find both wanting in some respects. During the course of this examination, I give a formal definition of the class of combinatorial-state automata , upon which Chalmers s account of implementation is based. I show that this definition implies two theorems (one an observation due to Curtis Brown) concerning the computational power of combinatorial-state automata, theorems which speak against founding the theory of implementation upon this formalism. Toward the end of the thesis, I sketch a definition of the implementation of Turing machines in dynamical systems, and offer this as an alternative to Chalmers s and Copeland s accounts of implementation. I demonstrate that the definition does not imply Searle s claim for the universal implementation of computations. However, the definition may support claims that are weaker than Searle s, yet still troubling to the computationalist. There remains a kernel of relativity in implementation at any rate, since the interpretation of physical systems seems itself to be an observer-relative matter, to some degree at least. This observation helps clarify the role the notion of computation can play in cognitive science. Specifically, I will argue that the notion should be conceived as an instrumental rather than as a fundamental or foundational one.

Lasten toiminnan dokumentointi varhaiskasvatuksessa

Early childhood education carries multiple experiences, activities, challenges, disappointments, achievements and encounters. Small children have difficulties to remember, piece together and pass on those experiences and feelings to their teachers or parents. The aim of this study was to examine the contex and organization of early childhood education where documentation raises and develops. Furthermore it was examined what the documentation of small children means in practice and how the teachers understood it. In this study the mixed methods have been used to expose different perspectives about the subject. Also the material was collected using several methods and is a part of two other studies. The quantitative study was made with material which included 892 randomly chosen children and their teachers from 313 daycare units in the metropolitan area of Finland. The material is a part of a Children´s agentive perception uncovered study (2010), which was carried out by the University of Helsinki. The qualitative study was made by using the material of a VKK-Metro development project, which was carried out also in the metropolitan area (2009). The analysis and the conclusions were made by using Reunamo´s theoretical model of agentive perception and Bronfenbrenner´s ecological systems theory. The angle is childcentered, constructivistic and sosioconstructivistic education. In this study a remarkable confrontation was found between the visions and the practices of the early childhood educators. The documentation was not a powerful educational tool for them and the pedagogy was not built up in a sosioconstructive way. After all it was noticeable that when the teachers got more recources and pedagogical support to the documentation of the children, they found more child-centered angel in their practices as early educators. It seemed that the teachers usally work under quite a pressure and should get more resouces to become able to develop the pedagogy. This study is useful for those who are interested in the child-centered way of working and the documentation as a pedagogical tool. It is also a good basis for further studies and for the attempts to regenerate early childhood education.

Hyvän hallinnon muunnelmat : Julkisoikeudellinen tutkimus

This doctoral thesis analyses the concepts of good governance and good administration. The hypothesis is that the concepts are radically indeterminate and over-inclusive. In the study the mechanisms of this indeterminacy are examined: why are the concepts indeterminate; how does the indeterminacy work and, indeed, is it by any means plausible to try to define the concepts in a closed way? Therefore, the study focuses on various current perspectives, from which the concepts of good governance and good administration are relevant and what kind of discursive contents they may include. The approach is both legal (a right to good administration) and one of moral philosophy and discourse analysis. It appears that under the meta-discourse of good governance and good administration there are different sub-discourses: at least a legal sub-discourse, a moral/ethical sub-discourse and sub-discourses concerning economic effectiveness and the promotion of societal and economic development. The main claim is that the various sub-discourses do not necessarily identify each other s value premises and conceptual underpinnings: for which value could the attribute good be substituted in different discourses (for example, good as legal, good as ethical and so on)? The underlying presumption is, of course, that values are ultimately subjective and incommensurable. One possible way of trying to resolve the dynamics of possible discourse collisions is to employ the systems theory approach. Can the different discourses be interpreted as autopoietic systems, which create and change themselves according to their own criteria and are formed around a binary code? Can the different discourses be reconciled or are they indifferent or hostile towards each other? Is there a hegemonic super discourse or is the construction of a correct meaning purely contextual? The questions come back to the notions of administration and governance themselves the terms the good in its polymorphic ways is attempting to define. Do they engage different political rationalities? It can be suggested that administration is labelled by instrumental reason, governance by teleological reason. In the final analysis, the most crucial factor is that of power. It is about a Schmittian battle of concepts; how meanings are constructed in the interplay between conceptual ambiguity and social power. Thus, the study deals with administrative law, legal theory and the limits of law from the perspective of revealing critique.