What is wrong with prototypes
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):471-472 (1998)
| Abstract | Representing objects and concepts as points in low-dimensional shape space defined by distances to other complete object exemplars or prototypes, expressed as single numbers, misses the key advantages of representation in terms of hierarchically constructed, meaningful features of the environment. Generalisation along statistically significant, near-independent, sparse, cooperative features that stand directly for various aspects of a concept is essential. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Configure |
Maarten Franssen (2005). Design Research Programs. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 84 (1):139-153.
Norman Foo & Boon Toh Low (2008). A Note on Prototypes, Convexity and Fuzzy Sets. Studia Logica 90 (1):125 - 137.
Pierre Poirier & Guillaume Beaulac (2011). Le Véritable Retour des Définitions. Dialogue 50 (1):153-164.
Jussi Jylkkä (2011). Hybrid Extensional Prototype Compositionality. Minds and Machines 21 (1):41-56.
James Virtel & Gualtiero Piccinini (2010). Are Prototypes and Exemplars Used in Distinct Cognitive Processes? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):226-227.
James R. Williamson (1998). How is Representation Learned? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):484-484.
Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest LePore (1996). The Red Herring and the Pet Fish: Why Concepts Still Can't Be Prototypes. Cognition 58:253-70.
Gy Fuhrmann (1988). “Prototypes” and “Fuzziness” in the Logic of Concepts. Synthese 75 (3):317 - 347.
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads5 ( #160,239 of 549,013 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,013 )How can I increase my downloads? |

