Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Descending Marr's levels: Standard observers are no panacea

  • Carlos Zednik (a1) and Frank Jäkel (a2)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Bechtel, W. (2009) Looking down, around, and up: Mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology 22:543–64.
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.
Colombo, M. & Hartmann, S. (2017) Bayesian cognitive science, unification, and explanation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68(2):451–84.
Craver, C. F. (2013) Functions and mechanisms: A perspectivalist view. In: Functions: Selection and mechanisms, ed. Huneman, P., pp. 133–58. Springer.
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.
Gigerenzer, G. (1991) From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review 98(2):254–67.
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.
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.
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.
Shagrir, O. (2010) Marr on computational-level theories. Philosophy of Science 77(4):477500.
Stüttgen, M. O., Schwarz, C. & Jäkel, F. (2011) Mapping spikes to sensations. Frontiers in Neuroscience 5:125.
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.
Zednik, C. (2017) Mechanisms in cognitive science. In: The Routledge handbook of mechanisms and mechanical philosophy, ed. Glennan, S. & Illari, P., pp. 389400. Routledge.
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.
Zednik, C. & Jäkel, F. (2016) Bayesian reverse-engineering considered as a research strategy for cognitive science. Synthese 193:3951–85.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed