Determining transformation distance in similarity: Considerations for assessing representational changes a priori
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 18 (1):59 - 80 (2012)
The representational distortion (RD) approach to similarity (e.g., Hahn, Chater, & Richardson, 2003) proposes that similarity is computed using the transformation distance between two entities. We argue that researchers who adopt this approach need to be concerned with how representational transformations can be determined a priori. We discuss several roadblocks to using this approach. Specifically we demonstrate the difficulties inherent in determining what transformations are psychologically salient and the importance of considering the directionality of transformations
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Raimo Tuomela (1980). Analogy and Distance. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 11 (2):276-291.
Nick Treanor (2013). The Measure of Knowledge. Noûs 47 (3):577-601.
Aarre Laakso & Garrison W. Cottrell (2000). Content and Cluster Analysis: Assessing Representational Similarity in Neural Systems. Philosophical Psychology 13 (1):47-76.
Robert Bishop, Brussels-Austin Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics in the Later Years: Large Poincaré Systems and Rigged Hilbert Space.
Arthur B. Markman, Sergey Blok, Kyungil Kim, Levi Larkey, Lisa R. Narvaez, C. Hunt Stilwell & Eric Taylor (2005). Digging Beneath Rules and Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):29-30.
Beata Konikowska (1997). A Logic for Reasoning About Relative Similarity. Studia Logica 58 (1):185-226.
Gary Marcus (2005). Opposites Detract: Why Rules and Similarity Should Not Be Viewed as Opposite Ends of a Continuum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-29.
Oscar Vilarroya (2005). In Search of Radical Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):35-35.
Rolf Reber (2005). Rule Versus Similarity: Different in Processing Mode, Not in Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):31-32.
Eva Feder Kittay (1982). The Creation of Similarity: A Discussion of Metaphor in Light of Tversky's Theory of Similarity. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:394 - 405.
Ying-Hua Lv Lian-Peng Zhao, Ming-Hai Yao Chun Li & Xi-Zi Jin (2010). An s-Curve-Based Approach of Identifying Biological Sequences. Acta Biotheoretica 58 (1).
Robert N. Brandon (1978). Evolution. Philosophy of Science 45 (1):96-109.
Arthur B. Markman & Takashi Yamauchi (1998). Boundary Conditions and the Need for Multiple Forms of Representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):477-478.
Alistair M. C. Isaac (2013). Objective Similarity and Mental Representation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (4):683-704.
Added to index2012-02-22
Total downloads3 ( #292,437 of 1,100,875 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,726 of 1,100,875 )
How can I increase my downloads?