My own answer to the question was included after a list of suggested definitions. Here it is:
In science, arguing about a definition and attempting to produce a
single binary division (e.g. between cognitive and non-cognitive
systems/processes/mechanisms) is often a waste of time.
What we need are surveys of the variety of possibilities, and
comparative analysis of their implications, requirements, tradeoffs,
etc. (The philosopher Gilbert Ryle referred to analysing the
'logical geography' of a system of concepts.)
Instead of futile and unending debates about which is the best or
right definition to use we can do more fruitful research into
similarities and differences between many different subcases,
whether in natural or artificial systems. For example, many
definitions of cognition consider only human capabilities and would
exclude the ability of insects to use landmarks.
I am not saying there is a continuum of cases: on the contrary both
in evolution and in the set of possible artificial systems there are
many interesting discontinuities -- some big some small. We need to
understand all of them. Focusing on one division that happens to
interest particular researchers can divert research away from the
more general kind research which in the long run will provide deeper
insights into all the discontinuities.
Further discussion of Ryle's notion of 'Logical geography' and the deeper notion of 'Logical topograpy' can be found here.
Maintained by
Aaron Sloman
School of Computer Science
The University of Birmingham