David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Psychology 13 (2):149-172 (2000)
Symbols should be grounded, as has been argued before. But we insist that they should be grounded not only in subsymbolic activities, but also in the interaction between the agent and the world. The point is that concepts are not formed in isolation (from the world), in abstraction, or "objectively." They are formed in relation to the experience of agents, through their perceptual/motor apparatuses, in their world and linked to their goals and actions. This paper takes a detailed look at this relatively old issue, with a new perspective, aided by our work of computational cognitive model development. To further our understanding, we also go back in time to link up with earlier philosophical theories related to this issue. The result is an account that extends from computational mechanisms to philosophical abstractions.
|Keywords||Cognitive Science Computation Objectivity Science Symbol|
|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
Ron Sun (2013). Autonomous Generation of Symbolic Representations Through Subsymbolic Activities. Philosophical Psychology 26 (6):888 - 912.
Peter Wallis (2004). Intention Without Representation. Philosophical Psychology 17 (2):209-223.
Eliano Pessa & Graziano Terenzi (2007). Semiosis in Cognitive Systems: A Neural Approach to the Problem of Meaning. [REVIEW] Mind and Society 6 (2):189-209.
João Queiroz & Floyd Merrell (2009). On Peirce's Pragmatic Notion of Semiosis—a Contribution for the Design of Meaning Machines. Minds and Machines 19 (1):129-143.
Graziano Terenzi (2008). Semiosis in Cognitive Systems. Semiotica 2008 (171):131-162.
Similar books and articles
Stevan Harnad (1995). Grounding Symbols in Sensorimotor Categories with Neural Networks. Institute of Electrical Engineers Colloquium on "Grounding Representations.
Peter beim Graben (2004). Incompatible Implementations of Physical Symbol Systems. Mind and Matter 2 (2):29-51.
Tim van Gelder (1999). Defending the Dynamic Hypothesis. In Wolfgang Tschacher & J-P Dauwalder (eds.), Dynamics, Synergetics, Autonomous Agents: Nonlinear Systems Approaches to Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Science. Singapore: World Scientific
Paul Vogt (2002). The Physical Symbol Grounding Problem. Philosophical Explorations.
Angelo Cangelosi, Alberto Greco & Stevan Harnad (2002). Symbol Grounding and the Symbolic Theft Hypothesis. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (eds.), Simulating the Evolution of Language. Springer-Verlag 191--210.
Vincent C. Müller (2009). Symbol Grounding in Computational Systems: A Paradox of Intentions. Minds and Machines 19 (4):529-541.
Stevan Harnad, Symbol Grounding is an Empirical Problem: Neural Nets Are Just a Candidate Component.
Stevan Harnad (1994). Computation is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation; Cognition Isn't. Minds and Machines 4 (4):379-90.
Bruce J. MacLennan (1993). Grounding Analog Computers. Philosophical Explorations 2:8-51.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #82,434 of 1,790,235 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #168,661 of 1,790,235 )
How can I increase my downloads?