Abstract concepts require concrete models: why cognitive scientists have not yet embraced nonlinearly coupled, dynamical, self-organized critical, synergistic, scale-free, exquisitely context-sensitive, interaction-dominant, multifractal, interdependent brain-body-niche systems

Top Cogn Sci. 2012 Jan;4(1):87-93; discussion 94-102. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01164.x. Epub 2011 Oct 24.

Abstract

After more than 15 years of study, the 1/f noise or complex-systems approach to cognitive science has delivered promises of progress, colorful verbiage, and statistical analyses of phenomena whose relevance for cognition remains unclear. What the complex-systems approach has arguably failed to deliver are concrete insights about how people perceive, think, decide, and act. Without formal models that implement the proposed abstract concepts, the complex-systems approach to cognitive science runs the danger of becoming a philosophical exercise in futility. The complex-systems approach can be informative and innovative, but only if it is implemented as a formal model that allows concrete prediction, falsification, and comparison against more traditional approaches.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Comment

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Choice Behavior*
  • Cognition*
  • Cognitive Science / methods*
  • Communication*
  • Consciousness*
  • Fractals*
  • Humans
  • Models, Neurological*
  • Psychomotor Performance*
  • Speech*