The Newell Test for a Theory of Mind

Newell (1980, 1990) proposed that cognitive theories be developed trying to satisfy multiple criteria to avoid theoretical myopia. He provided two overlapping lists of 13 criteria that the human cognitive architecture would have to satisfy to be functional. We have distilled these into 12: flexible behavior, real-time performance, adaptive behavior, vast knowledge base, dynamic behavior, knowledge integration, natural language, learning, development, evolution, and brain realization. There would be greater theoretical progress if we evaluated theories by a broad set of criteria such as these and attended to the weaknesses such evaluations revealed. To illustrate how theories can be evaluated we apply them to both classical connectionism (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1986; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986) and the ACT-R theory (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998). The strengths of classical connectionism on this test derive from its intense effort in addressing empirical phenomena in domains like language and cognitive development. Its weaknesses derive from its failure to acknowledge a symbolic level to thought. In contrast, ACT-R includes both symbolic and subsymbolic components. The strengths of the ACT-R derive from its tight integration of the symbolic with the subsymbolic. Its weaknesses largely derive from its failure as yet to adequately engage in intensive analyses of issues related to certain criteria on Newell’s list.