Online research in philosophy

We illustrate a novel conception of linguistic invariant which applies to grammars of different natural languages (English, Korean,...) even though they may use different categories and have difl'erent rules. We illustrate formally how semantically defined notions, such as "is an anaphor" may be invariant in all linguistically motivated grammars (the issue is an empirical one), and we show that individual morphemes, such as case markers, may be invariant in grammars that have them in exactly the same sense in which (...) properties, such as "is a Verb Phrase" or relations such as "is a constituent of". (shrink)

Linguists rely on intuitive conceptions of structure when comparing expressions and languages. In an algebraic presentation of a language, some natural notions of similarity can be rigorously defined (e.g. among elements of a language, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of the language; and among languages, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of symmetry groups), but it tums out that slightly more complex and nonstandard notions are needed to capture the kinds of comparisons linguists want to make. This paper identihes some of the important notions of (...) structural similarity, with attention to similarity claims that are prominent in the current linguistic tradition of transformational grammar. @ 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. (shrink)

The performance of a connectionist learning system on a simple problem has been described by Hinton and is briefly reviewed here: a finite set is learned from a finite collection of finite sets, and the system generalizes correctly from partial information by finding simple "features" of the environment. For comparison, a very similar problem is formulated in the Gold paradigm of discrete learning functions. To get generalization similar to the connectionist system, a non-conservative learning strategy is required. We define a (...) simple, non-conservative strategy that generalizes like the connectionist system, finding simple "features" of the environment. By placing an arbitrary finite bound on the number and complexity of the features to be found, learning can be guaranteed relative to a probabilistic criterion of success. However, this approach to induction has essentially the same problems as many others that have failed. (shrink)

Saul Kripke has proposed an argument to show that there is a serious problem with many computational accounts of physical systems and with functionalist theories in the philosophy of mind. The problem with computational accounts is roughly that they provide no noncircular way to maintain that any particular function with an infinite domain is realized by any physical system, and functionalism has the similar problem because of the character of the functional systems that are supposed to be realized by organisms. (...) This paper shows that the standard account of what it is for a physical system to compute a function can avoid Kripke's criticisms without being reduced to circularity; a very minor and natural elaboration of the standard account suffices to save both functionalist theories and computational accounts generally. (shrink)

Quine's (1969) proposal that the foundationalist programs in epistemology should be abandoned in favor of a scientific study of how we come to hold our theories about the world is still widely misunderstood. It does not eliminate the possibility of rational adjudication of scientific dispute, nor is it essentially tied to behaviorist approaches in psychology. On the contrary, recent work in psychology and philosophy of science can very naturally be seen as embodying the sort of program envisioned by Quine; now (...) freed of behaviorist strictures, it clearly addresses issues that have been of interest in traditional epistemology. This view is defended with particular attention to Quine's concerns with translation and the related concerns with belief individuation which have inspired critics of recent cognitive psychology. (shrink)