In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri
Color balance
In photography and image processing, color balance is the global adjustment of the intensities of the colors (typically red, green, and blue primary colors). An important goal of this adjustment is to render specific colors – particularly neutral colors like white or grey – correctly. Hence, the general method is sometimes called gray balance, neutral balance, or white balance. Color balance changes the overall mixture of colors in an image and is used for color correction. Generalized versions of color balance are used to correct colors other than neutrals or to deliberately change them for effect. White balance is one of the most common kinds of balancing, and is when colors are adjusted to make a white object (such as a piece of paper or a wall) appear white and not a shade of any other colour. Image data acquired by sensors – either film or electronic image sensors – must be transformed from the acquired values to new values that are appropriate for color reproduction or display. Several aspects of the acquisition and display process make such color correction essential – including that the acquisition sensors do not match the sensors in the human eye, that the properties of the display medium must be accounted for, and that the ambient viewing conditions of the acquisition differ from the display viewing conditions. The color balance operations in popular image editing applications usually operate directly on the red, green, and blue channel pixel values, without respect to any color sensing or reproduction model. In film photography, color balance is typically achieved by using color correction filters over the lights or on the camera lens. == Generalized color balance == Sometimes the adjustment to keep neutrals neutral is called white balance, and the phrase color balance refers to the adjustment that in addition makes other colors in a displayed image appear to have the same general appearance as the colors in an original scene. It is particularly important that neutral (gray, neutral, white) colors in a scene appear neutral in the reproduction. === Psychological color balance === Humans relate to flesh tones more critically than other colors. Trees, grass and sky can all be off without concern, but if human flesh tones are 'off' then the human subject can look sick or dead. To address this critical color balance issue, the tri-color primaries themselves are formulated to not balance as a true neutral color. The purpose of this color primary imbalance is to more faithfully reproduce the flesh tones through the entire brightness range. == Illuminant estimation and adaptation == Most digital cameras have means to select color correction based on the type of scene lighting, using either manual lighting selection, automatic white balance, or custom white balance. The algorithms for these processes perform generalized chromatic adaptation. Many methods exist for color balancing. Setting a button on a camera is a way for the user to indicate to the processor the nature of the scene lighting. Another option on some cameras is a button which one may press when the camera is pointed at a gray card or other neutral colored object. This captures an image of the ambient light, which enables a digital camera to set the correct color balance for that light. There is a large literature on how one might estimate the ambient lighting from the camera data and then use this information to transform the image data. A variety of algorithms have been proposed, and the quality of these has been debated. A few examples and examination of the references therein will lead the reader to many others. Examples are Retinex, an artificial neural network or a Bayesian method. == Chromatic colors == Color balancing an image affects not only the neutrals, but other colors as well. An image that is not color balanced is said to have a color cast, as everything in the image appears to have been shifted towards one color. Color balancing may be thought in terms of removing this color cast. Color balance is also related to color constancy. Algorithms and techniques used to attain color constancy are frequently used for color balancing, as well. Color constancy is, in turn, related to chromatic adaptation. Conceptually, color balancing consists of two steps: first, determining the illuminant under which an image was captured; and second, scaling the components (e.g., R, G, and B) of the image or otherwise transforming the components so they conform to the viewing illuminant. Viggiano found that white balancing in the camera's native RGB color model tended to produce less color inconstancy (i.e., less distortion of the colors) than in monitor RGB for over 4000 hypothetical sets of camera sensitivities. This difference typically amounted to a factor of more than two in favor of camera RGB. This means that it is advantageous to get color balance right at the time an image is captured, rather than edit later on a monitor. If one must color balance later, balancing the raw image data will tend to produce less distortion of chromatic colors than balancing in monitor RGB. == Mathematics of color balance == Color balancing is sometimes performed on a three-component image (e.g., RGB) using a 3x3 matrix. This type of transformation is appropriate if the image was captured using the wrong white balance setting on a digital camera, or through a color filter. Changing the color balance of an image can improve classifier results on a trained ML model. === Scaling monitor R, G, and B === In principle, one wants to scale all relative luminances in an image so that objects which are believed to be neutral appear so. If, say, a surface with R = 240 {\displaystyle R=240} was believed to be a white object, and if 255 is the count which corresponds to white, one could multiply all red values by 255/240. Doing analogously for green and blue would result, at least in theory, in a color balanced image. In this type of transformation the 3x3 matrix is a diagonal matrix. [ R G B ] = [ 255 / R w ′ 0 0 0 255 / G w ′ 0 0 0 255 / B w ′ ] [ R ′ G ′ B ′ ] {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{array}{c}R\\G\\B\end{array}}\right]=\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}255/R'_{w}&0&0\\0&255/G'_{w}&0\\0&0&255/B'_{w}\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{c}R'\\G'\\B'\end{array}}\right]} where R {\displaystyle R} , G {\displaystyle G} , and B {\displaystyle B} are the color balanced red, green, and blue components of a pixel in the image; R ′ {\displaystyle R'} , G ′ {\displaystyle G'} , and B ′ {\displaystyle B'} are the red, green, and blue components of the image before color balancing, and R w ′ {\displaystyle R'_{w}} , G w ′ {\displaystyle G'_{w}} , and B w ′ {\displaystyle B'_{w}} are the red, green, and blue components of a pixel which is believed to be a white surface in the image before color balancing. This is a simple scaling of the red, green, and blue channels, and is why color balance tools in Photoshop have a white eyedropper tool. It has been demonstrated that performing the white balancing in the phosphor set assumed by sRGB tends to produce large errors in chromatic colors, even though it can render the neutral surfaces perfectly neutral. === Scaling X, Y, Z === If the image may be transformed into CIE XYZ tristimulus values, the color balancing may be performed there. This has been termed a "wrong von Kries" transformation. Although it has been demonstrated to offer usually poorer results than balancing in monitor RGB, it is mentioned here as a bridge to other things. Mathematically, one computes: [ X Y Z ] = [ X w / X w ′ 0 0 0 Y w / Y w ′ 0 0 0 Z w / Z w ′ ] [ X ′ Y ′ Z ′ ] {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{array}{c}X\\Y\\Z\end{array}}\right]=\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}X_{w}/X'_{w}&0&0\\0&Y_{w}/Y'_{w}&0\\0&0&Z_{w}/Z'_{w}\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{c}X'\\Y'\\Z'\end{array}}\right]} where X {\displaystyle X} , Y {\displaystyle Y} , and Z {\displaystyle Z} are the color-balanced tristimulus values; X w {\displaystyle X_{w}} , Y w {\displaystyle Y_{w}} , and Z w {\displaystyle Z_{w}} are the tristimulus values of the viewing illuminant (the white point to which the image is being transformed to conform to); X w ′ {\displaystyle X'_{w}} , Y w ′ {\displaystyle Y'_{w}} , and Z w ′ {\displaystyle Z'_{w}} are the tristimulus values of an object believed to be white in the un-color-balanced image, and X ′ {\displaystyle X'} , Y ′ {\displaystyle Y'} , and Z ′ {\displaystyle Z'} are the tristimulus values of a pixel in the un-color-balanced image. If the tristimulus values of the monitor primaries are in a matrix P {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} } so that: [ X Y Z ] = P [ L R L G L B ] {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{array}{c}X\\Y\\Z\end{array}}\right]=\mathbf {P} \left[{\begin{array}{c}L_{R}\\L_{G}\\L_{B}\end{array}}\right]} where L R {\displaystyle L_{R}} , L G {\displaystyle L_{G}} , and L B {\displaystyle L_{B}} are the un-gamma corrected monitor RGB, one may use: [ L R L G L B ] = P − 1 [ X w / X w ′ 0 0
Mirella Lapata
Mirella Lapata is a computer scientist and Professor in the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh. Working on the general problem of extracting semantic information from large bodies of text, Lapata develops computer algorithms and models in the field of natural language processing (NLP). == Education == Lapata obtained a Master of Arts (MA) degree from Carnegie Mellon University and subsequently earned a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh. Lapata's doctoral research investigated the acquisition of information from polysemous linguistic units using probabilistic methods supervised by Alex Lascarides, Chris Brew and Steve Finch. == Career and research == After her doctorate, Lapata assumed academic positions at Saarland University and at the Department of Computer Science at the University of Sheffield. At the University of Edinburgh she became a reader in the School of Informatics where she is a full Professor and holds a personal chair in natural language processing. Lapata is a member of the Human Communication Research Center and Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation, both in Edinburgh. Between 2015 and 2017, Lapata served as a member of the Royal Society Machine Learning Working Group. Recently Lapata was granted a European Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant worth €1.9M to fund five years of her project, TransModal: Translating from Multiple Modalities into Text. === Awards and honours === In 2009 Lapata became the first recipient of the Microsoft British Computer Society (BCS)/BCS IRSG Karen Spärck Jones Award. The award recognises achievement in furthering the progress in information retrieval and natural language processing; the award commemorates the life and work of Karen Spärck Jones. In 2012 Lapata won an Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)-CoNLL 2012 Best Reviewer Award. In 2018 Lapata was awarded, alongside Li Dong, an Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) Best Paper Honorable Mention. In 2019 Lapata was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh In 2020 Lapata was elected to the Academia Europaea. In 2025 Lapata was awarded the BCS Lovelace Medal for Computing Research.
Is an AI Paragraph Rewriter Worth It in 2026?
In search of the best AI paragraph rewriter? An AI paragraph rewriter is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paragraph rewriter slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Best AI Customer-support Bots in 2026
In search of the best AI customer-support bot? An AI customer-support bot is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI customer-support bot slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Aldus PhotoStyler
Aldus PhotoStyler was a graphics software program developed by the Taiwanese company Ulead. Released in June 1991 as the first 24 bit image editor for Windows, it was bought the same year by the Aldus Prepress group. Its main competition was Adobe Photoshop. Version 2.0 (late 1993) introduced a new user interface and improved color calibration. PhotoStyler SE - lacking some features of the version 2.0 - was bundled with scanners like HP ScanJet. The product disappeared from the Adobe product line after Adobe acquired Aldus in 1994.
Is an AI Sales Assistant Worth It in 2026?
Shopping for the best AI sales assistant? An AI sales assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI sales assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.