Does human mind have cognitive structure? This question leads cognitive scientists to study the subject of cognitive architecture. Since the advent of cognitive science, there have been emerged three architectures: symbolism, connectionism, and embodimentism. The purpose of the paper is to make comparisons of those architectures in theoretical level. As well-known, symbolism and connectionism have concrete architectures. Symbolism suggests ACT-R and SOAR and connectionism does local or PDP neural networks. Recently, embodimentism has succeeded in attracting researchers’ interests as a candidate of the third research programme of cognitive science. However, it is premature to say that embodimentism can be the third research programme. There are several reasons for that. It has many faces- embodied cognition, embedded cognition, enactive cognition, extended cognition, distributed cognition, and situated cognition, so it is very hard to understand its identity. Above all, for a theory to be a research programme of any science it has a concrete model or architecture. But, embodimentism doesn’t furnish a concrete architecture except Brooks’ situated action theory. In this paper I shall compare symbolism, connectionism, and embodimentism (Situated action theory) as a cognitive architecture.