Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 13 (2):149-172 (2000)
|Abstract||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)|
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.
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.
Vincent C. Müller (2009). Symbol Grounding in Computational Systems: A Paradox of Intentions. [REVIEW] 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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #46,435 of 739,328 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,186 of 739,328 )
How can I increase my downloads?