Simultaneous Hypotheses in Cognitive Agents: Commentary on Paxton, Necaise et al., and the Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science.

The 1998 article by van Gelder proposed a Dynamical Hypothesis (DH) in cognitive science consisting of Nature (cognitive agents are dynamical systems) and Knowledge (cognitive agents should be understood dynamically) hypotheses in contrast to the Computational Hypothesis (CH) that cognitive agents are computers. My commentary focuses on the contributions of Paxton and Necaise et al. in interpersonal motor coordination and radicalization across social media. I do not think that either contribution supports the Nature hypothesis but does conform with the Knowledge hypothesis. I conclude by describing cognitive agents as living systems (or nonliving systems that mimic aspects of living systems) that can be alternately viewed to support the DH or CH or both at the same time.