Gallistel argues that path integration in desert ants is evidence that cognitive maps represent metric space (content), which, in turn, is evidence of systematicity and classical computation (format). I present other results where ants violate metric assumptions like symmetry, suggesting their navigation is not classically systematic. I then argue that ant navigation fits a cognitive graph hypothesis, a middle ground between metric maps and abandoning map‐like representations altogether. Cogniti…
Read moreGallistel argues that path integration in desert ants is evidence that cognitive maps represent metric space (content), which, in turn, is evidence of systematicity and classical computation (format). I present other results where ants violate metric assumptions like symmetry, suggesting their navigation is not classically systematic. I then argue that ant navigation fits a cognitive graph hypothesis, a middle ground between metric maps and abandoning map‐like representations altogether. Cognitive graphs are equally compatible with connectionist models of computation. The debate over cognitive maps in insects like ants, therefore, sheds wider light on the computational foundations of cognitive science.
