What does Pylyshyn take his “mysterious box with unknown contents” example to show?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, let's restate the question and the answer options to ensure clarity about what is being assessed.
Question: What does Pylyshyn take his “mysterious box with unknown contents” example to show?
Answer options:
1) That the human mind is ultimately no different than a computer
2) That we must know Morse code in order to do cognitive science
3) That observed behavioral regularities in normal circumstances may be misleading guides when we want to understand the system's cognitive architecture
4) That it is never possible for us to really know what is going on inside a cognitive system

Now, evaluate each option in turn, connecting them to Pylyshyn’s underlying argument about cognitive science and the limits of behavior alone.
Option 1: This claims the mind and computer are ultimately the same. Pylyshyn challenges simplistic identity theories by pointing to the possibility that identical external behavior can arise from different internal structures; the box analogy is used to argue for internal processes beyond what is observable behaviorally. Thus, this option misrepresents his point, which is not an assertion of complete mind–computer identity.
Option 2: The idea that Morse code knowledge is required to do cognitive science is irrelevant to Pylyshyn’s broader critique. He does not argue for a specific prerequisite like Morse code; rather, he critiques relying on surface behavior to infer internal mechanisms. Therefore, this option is misaligned with his actual point.
Option 3: This states that observed behavioral regularities in normal circumstances may be misleading guides when we want to understand the system's cognitive architecture. This aligns with Pylyshyn’s argument: the mysterious box shows that what we observe in behavior does not necessarily reveal the internal representations or processes, so caution is needed when inferring architecture from behavior alone. This is the core lesson the box is used to illustrate.
Option 4: Saying it is never possible to know what is going on inside a cognitive system overstates the claim. Pylyshyn does not deny the possibility of knowledge about internal mechanisms; he emphasizes limits of relying solely on behavior to infer them. This absolutist statement mischaracterizes his position and is therefore inaccurate.

In summary, the analysis shows that options 1 and 2 misstate the main thrust, option 4 overreaches what can be known about internal states, and option 3 accurately captures the intended teaching of the mysterious box analogy by highlighting the potential disconnect between observable behavior and internal cognitive architecture.

CGS001/PHI010 FQ 2025 Reading Response Quiz 2

What does Pylyshyn take his “mysterious box with unknown contents” example to show?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler