What do you think?
Rate this book
The Atomic Components of Thought
This book presents the newest evolution of Anderson's ACT theory, replete with applications to areas as analogical learning, action, choice, and cognitive arithmetic. For all cognitive scientists and advanced educational researchers.
504 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1998
1 person is currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
John R. Anderson
60 books15 followersThere is more than one author with this name in the Goodreads' database
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 11, 2008
Anderson has a very clear idea of what he believes cognition to be, and even in a text as dry as this one, subtle hints of language betray his (and his colleagues') near-dogmatic certainty (for instance, comparing ACT-R to the theory of relativity). There are thus two reasons for which you will not enjoy this book: 1) you feel Anderson is bashing you over the head; 2) you do not accept his basic assumptions--or the basic assumptions of cognitive science--on which ACT-R, cognitive science, and this book rest.
That said, I do believe this book is worth reading for those interested in computational/mathematical models of cognition, even if one is not an ACT-R modeler. First, ACT-R is a widely used cognitive architecture and so those working in the field, or with a scholarly interest in cognitive modeling, should have at least a working knowledge of the theory, particularly as it has been very successful in modeling human performance across a wide range of phenomena. Second, it is an excellent example of a production system model of cognition (of which there are several), and so serves as a useful introduction to production systems in general. Third, it shows the level of sophistication and specificity to which one should aspire when investigating cognition. This last point cannot be overemphasized, yet it seems to go unnoticed by many who approach not only ACT-R, but all scientific inquiry into the mind. Many people believe the mind is the province only of philosophy or religion. This book--and over fifty years of successful research--refutes that belief. For that reason, the reader of "The Atomic Components of Thought" should not necessarily agree with its claims, but at least appreciate their rigor.
That said, I do believe this book is worth reading for those interested in computational/mathematical models of cognition, even if one is not an ACT-R modeler. First, ACT-R is a widely used cognitive architecture and so those working in the field, or with a scholarly interest in cognitive modeling, should have at least a working knowledge of the theory, particularly as it has been very successful in modeling human performance across a wide range of phenomena. Second, it is an excellent example of a production system model of cognition (of which there are several), and so serves as a useful introduction to production systems in general. Third, it shows the level of sophistication and specificity to which one should aspire when investigating cognition. This last point cannot be overemphasized, yet it seems to go unnoticed by many who approach not only ACT-R, but all scientific inquiry into the mind. Many people believe the mind is the province only of philosophy or religion. This book--and over fifty years of successful research--refutes that belief. For that reason, the reader of "The Atomic Components of Thought" should not necessarily agree with its claims, but at least appreciate their rigor.
September 30, 2007
I have major fundamental issues with this book and ACT-R.
my main issue is that I really hate it.
maybe I gave up on it too early, but the whole premise seems to be fudging an exact functional replication of how the brain operates, based on anecdotal tests and stupid assumptions.
it is a journey down a wrong path.
it is an ad-hoc temporary solution, accepting that we don't have enough information or understanding to do an actual representation of human thought, but i just had major problems with it, and maybe an ACT-R simulation can tell me why (after the programmers decide what the possible reasons should be & then try it on 100 people).
im not against cognitive science as a whole, and there are other books and methods I highly enjoy, but act-r just really pissed me off. it didn't help that the lisp version was so clunky.
my main issue is that I really hate it.
maybe I gave up on it too early, but the whole premise seems to be fudging an exact functional replication of how the brain operates, based on anecdotal tests and stupid assumptions.
it is a journey down a wrong path.
it is an ad-hoc temporary solution, accepting that we don't have enough information or understanding to do an actual representation of human thought, but i just had major problems with it, and maybe an ACT-R simulation can tell me why (after the programmers decide what the possible reasons should be & then try it on 100 people).
im not against cognitive science as a whole, and there are other books and methods I highly enjoy, but act-r just really pissed me off. it didn't help that the lisp version was so clunky.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews