Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-vh8gq Total loading time: 0.859 Render date: 2022-09-26T02:38:38.668Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Descending Marr's levels: Standard observers are no panacea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Carlos Zednik
Affiliation:
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, D-39016 Magdeburg, Germany. carlos.zednik@ovgu.dehttps://sites.google.com/site/czednik/
Frank Jäkel
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Centre for Cognitive Science, D-64283 Darmstadt, Germany. jaekel@psychologie.tu-darmstadt.de

Abstract

According to Marr, explanations of perceptual behavior should address multiple levels of analysis. Rahnev & Denison (R&D) are perhaps overly dismissive of optimality considerations at the computational level. Also, an exclusive reliance on standard observer models may cause neglect of many other plausible hypotheses at the algorithmic level. Therefore, as far as explanation goes, standard observer modeling is no panacea.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bechtel, W. (2009) Looking down, around, and up: Mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology 22:543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. & Shagrir, O. (2015) The non-redundant contributions of Marr's three levels of analysis for explaining information-processing mechanisms. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(2):312–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colombo, M. & Hartmann, S. (2017) Bayesian cognitive science, unification, and explanation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68(2):451–84.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2013) Functions and mechanisms: A perspectivalist view. In: Functions: Selection and mechanisms, ed. Huneman, P., pp. 133–58. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danks, D. (2008) Rational analyses, instrumentalism, and implementations. In: The probabilistic mind: Prospects for rational models of cognition, ed. Chater, N. & Oaksford, M., pp. 5975. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1991) From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review 98(2):254–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2011) Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(4):169–88. Available at: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0140525X10003134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L. & Navarro, D. J. (2010) Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review 4:1144–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shagrir, O. (2010) Marr on computational-level theories. Philosophy of Science 77(4):477500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stüttgen, M. O., Schwarz, C. & Jäkel, F. (2011) Mapping spikes to sensations. Frontiers in Neuroscience 5:125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swets, J. A., Tanner, W. P. & Birdsall, T. G. (1961) Decision processes in perception. Psychological Review 68(5):301–40. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13774292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zednik, C. (2017) Mechanisms in cognitive science. In: The Routledge handbook of mechanisms and mechanical philosophy, ed. Glennan, S. & Illari, P., pp. 389400. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zednik, C. & Jäkel, F. (2014) How does Bayesian reverse-engineering work? In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bello, P., Guarini, M., McShane, M. & Scassellati, B., pp. 666–71. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Zednik, C. & Jäkel, F. (2016) Bayesian reverse-engineering considered as a research strategy for cognitive science. Synthese 193:3951–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Descending Marr's levels: Standard observers are no panacea
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Descending Marr's levels: Standard observers are no panacea
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Descending Marr's levels: Standard observers are no panacea
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *