77 found
Sort by:
  1. Peter Gärdenfors (2014). The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. The Mit Press.
    A novel cognitive theory of semantics that proposes that the meanings of words can be described in terms of geometric structures.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Peter Gärdenfors & Simone Löhndorf (2013). What is a Domain? Dimensional Structures Versus Meronomic Relations. Cognitive Linguistics 24 (3).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Peter Gärdenfors & Frank Zenker (2013). Theory Change as Dimensional Change: Conceptual Spaces Applied to the Dynamics of Empirical Theories. Synthese 190 (6):1039-1058.
    This paper offers a novel way of reconstructing conceptual change in empirical theories. Changes occur in terms of the structure of the dimensions—that is to say, the conceptual spaces—underlying the conceptual framework within which a given theory is formulated. Five types of changes are identified: (1) addition or deletion of special laws, (2) change in scale or metric, (3) change in the importance of dimensions, (4) change in the separability of dimensions, and (5) addition or deletion of dimensions. Given this (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Massimo Warglien & Peter Gärdenfors (2013). Semantics, Conceptual Spaces, and the Meeting of Minds. Synthese 190 (12):2165-2193.
    We present an account of semantics that is not construed as a mapping of language to the world but rather as a mapping between individual meaning spaces. The meanings of linguistic entities are established via a “meeting of minds.” The concepts in the minds of communicating individuals are modeled as convex regions in conceptual spaces. We outline a mathematical framework, based on fixpoints in continuous mappings between conceptual spaces, that can be used to model such a semantics. If concepts are (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Frank Zenker & Peter Gärdenfors (2013). Modeling Diachronic Changes in Structuralism and in Conceptual Spaces. Erkenntnis:1-15.
    Our aim in this article is to show how the theory of conceptual spaces can be useful in describing diachronic changes to conceptual frameworks, and thus useful in understanding conceptual change in the empirical sciences. We also compare the conceptual space approach to Moulines’s typology of intertheoretical relations in the structuralist tradition. Unlike structuralist reconstructions, those based on conceptual spaces yield a natural way of modeling the changes of a conceptual framework, including noncumulative changes, by tracing the changes to the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Mathias Osvath, Tomas Persson & Peter Gärdenfors (2012). Foresight, Function Representation, and Social Intelligence in the Great Apes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35 (4):234-235.
    We find problems with Vaesen's treatment of the primatological research, in particular his analysis of foresight, function representation, and social intelligence. We argue that his criticism of research on foresight in great apes is misguided. His claim that primates do not attach functions to particular objects is also problematic. Finally, his analysis of theory of mind neglects many distinctions.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Peter Gärdenfors (2011). Notes on the History of Ideas Behind AGM. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40 (2):115 - 120.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Peter Gärdenfors & Frank Zenker (2011). Using Conceptual Spaces to Model the Dynamics of Empirical Theories. In. In Erik J. Olson Sebastian Enqvist (ed.), Belief Revision Meets Philosophy of Science. Springer. 137--153.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Petter Johansson, Lars Hall & Peter Gärdenfors (2011). Choice Blindness and the Non-Unitary Nature of the Human Mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (1):28-29.
    Experiments on choice blindness support von Hippel & Trivers's (VH&T's) conception of the mind as fundamentally divided, but they also highlight a problem for VH&T's idea of non-conscious self-deception: If I try to trick you into believing that I have a certain preference, and the best way is to also trick myself, I might actually end up having that preference, at all levels of processing.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Peter Gärdenfors (2010). What Are the Benefits of Broad Horizons? In Hans Joas (ed.), The Benefit of Broad Horizons: Intellectual and Institutional Preconditions for a Global Social Science: Festschrift for Bjorn Wittrock on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Brill. 24.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Christian Balkenius & Peter Gärdenfors (2008). Anticipation Requires Adaptation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):199-200.
    To successfully interact with a dynamic world, our actions must be guided by a continuously changing anticipated future. Such anticipations must be tuned to the processing delays in the nervous system as well as to the slowness of the body, something that requires constant adaptation of the predictive mechanisms, which in turn require that sensory information be processed at different time-scales.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Peter Gärdenfors (2008). Evolutionary and Developmental Aspects of Intersubjectivity. In Hans Liljenström & Peter Århem (eds.), Consciousness Transitions: Phylogenetic, Ontogenetic, and Physiological Aspects. Elsevier.
  13. Peter Gärdenfors (2008). The Role of Intersubjectivity in Animal and Human Cooperation. Biological Theory 3 (1):51-62.
  14. Mathias Osvath & Peter Gärdenfors (2007). What Are the Evolutionary Causes of Mental Time Travel? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (3):329-330.
    We are not entirely satisfied with the evolutionary explanation provided by Suddendorf & Corballis (S&C) for why only humans should be capable of advanced mental time travel. General social factors do not suffice, given that other primates are also highly social. We discuss the evolutionary mechanisms that have generated mental time travel typical to humans, focusing on ecological factors.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Peter Gärdenfors (2006). A Representation Theorem for Voting with Logical Consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22 (2):181-190.
    This paper concerns voting with logical consequences, which means that anybody voting for an alternative x should vote for the logical consequences of x as well. Similarly, the social choice set is also supposed to be closed under logical consequences. The central result of the paper is that, given a set of fairly natural conditions, the only social choice functions that satisfy social logical closure are oligarchic (where a subset of the voters are decisive for the social choice). The set (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Peter Gärdenfors (2006). How Homo Became Sapiens: On the Evolution of Thinking. OUP Oxford.
    Our ability to think is one of our most puzzling characteristics. What it would be like to be unable to think? What would it be like to lack self-awareness? The complexity of this activity is striking. Thinking involves the interaction of a range of mental processes - attention, emotion, memory, planning, self-consciousness, free will, and language. So where did these processes arise? What evolutionary advantages were bestowed upon those with an ability to deceive, to plan, to empathize, or to understand (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Sverker Johansson, Jordan Zlatev & Peter Gärdenfors (2006). Why Don't Chimps Talk and Humans Sing Like Canaries? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (3):287-288.
    We focus on two problems with the evolutionary scenario proposed: (1) It bypasses the question of the origins of the communicative and semiotic features that make language distinct from, say, pleasant but meaningless sounds. (2) It does little to explain the absence of language in, for example, chimpanzees: Most of the selection pressures invoked apply just as strongly to chimps. We suggest how these problems could possibly be amended.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Peter Gardenfors, Petter Johansson & N. J. Mahwah (eds.) (2005). Cognition, Education, and Communication Technology. Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Jordan Zlatev, Tomas Persson & Peter Gärdenfors (2005). Triadic Bodily Mimesis is the Difference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (5):720-721.
    We find that the nature and origin of the proposed “dialogical cognitive representations” in the target article is not sufficiently clear. Our proposal is that (triadic) bodily mimesis and in particular mimetic schemas – prelinguistic representational, intersubjective structures, emerging through imitation but subsequently interiorized – can provide the necessary link between private sensory-motor experience and public language. In particular, we argue that shared intentionality requires triadic mimesis.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Peter Gardenfors (2004). Conceptual Spaces as a Framework for Knowledge Representation. Mind and Matter 2 (2):9-27.
    The dominating models of information processes have been based on symbolic representations of information and knowledge. During the last decades, a variety of non-symbolic models have been proposed as superior. The prime examples of models within the non-symbolic approach are neural networks. However, to a large extent they lack a higher-level theory of representation. In this paper, conceptual spaces are suggested as an appropriate framework for non- symbolic models. Conceptual spaces consist of a number of 'quality dimensions' that often are (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Peter Gardenfors (2004). Does Evolution Provide a Key to the Scientific Study of Mind? The Detachment of Thought. In Christina E. Erneling & David Martel Johnson (eds.), Mind As a Scientific Object. Oxford University Press.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Peter Gardenfors (2004). The Detachment of Thought. In Christina E. Erneling (ed.), The Mind as a Scientific Object: Between Brain and Culture. Oxford University Press. 323.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Peter Gärdenfors (2004). Emulators as Sources of Hidden Cognitive Variables. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):403-403.
    I focus on the distinction between sensation and perception. Perceptions contain additional information that is useful for interpreting sensations. Following Grush, I propose that emulators can be seen as containing (or creating) hidden variables that generate perceptions from sensations. Such hidden variables could be used to explain further cognitive phenomena, for example, causal reasoning.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Ingar Brinck & Peter Gärdenfors (2003). Co–Operation and Communication in Apes and Humans. Mind and Language 18 (5):484–501.
    We trace the difference between the ways in which apes and humans co–operate to differences in communicative abilities, claiming that the pressure for future–directed co–operation was a major force behind the evolution of language. Competitive co–operation concerns goals that are present in the environment and have stable values. It relies on either signalling or joint attention. Future–directed co–operation concerns new goals that lack fixed values. It requires symbolic communication and context–independent representations of means and goals. We analyse these ways of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Peter Gardenfors, Katarzyna Kijania-Placek & Jan Wolenski (eds.) (2002). In the Scope of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (Vol II). Kluwer.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Peter Gärdenfors (2001). Concept Learning: A Geometrical Model. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (2):163–183.
    In contrast to symbolic or associationist representations, I advocate a third form of representing information that employs geometrical structures. I argue that this form is appropriate for modelling concept learning. By using the geometrical structures of what I call conceptual spaces, I define properties and concepts. A learning model that shows how properties and concepts can be learned in a simple but naturalistic way is then presented. I also discuss the advantages of the geometric approach over the symbolic and associationist (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Peter Gärdenfors (2001). Concept Modeling, Essential Properties, and Similarity Spaces. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1105-1106.
    Bloom argues that concepts depend on psychological essentialism. He rejects the proposal that concepts are based on perceptual similarity spaces because it cannot account for how we handle new properties and does not fit with our intuitions about essences. I argue that by using a broader notion of similarity space, it is possible to explain these features of concepts.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Annika Wallin & Peter Gärdenfors (2000). Smart People Who Make Simple Heuristics Work. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):765-765.
    To evaluate the success of simple heuristics we need to know more about how a relevant heuristic is chosen and how we learn which cues are relevant. These meta-abilities are at the core of ecological rationality, rather than the individual heuristics.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Ingar Brinck & Peter Gärdenfors (1999). Representation and Self-Awareness in Intentional Agents. Synthese 118 (1):89 - 104.
    Several conditions for being an intrinsically intentional agent are put forward. On a first level of intentionality the agent has representations. Two kinds are described: cued and detached. An agent with both kinds is able to represent both what is prompted by the context and what is absent from it. An intermediate level of intentionality is achieved by having an inner world, that is, a coherent system of detached representations that model the world. The inner world is used, e.g., for (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Oesten Dahl, Mary Dalrymple, Paul Dekker, Josh Dever, Walter Edelberg, Kai von Fintel, Gilles Fauconnier, Nissim Francez, Peter Gärdenfors & Bart Geurts (1999). 680 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Fiona Cowie Max Cresswell Mark Crimmins. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:679-680.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Peter Gardenfors (1997). Meanings as Conceptual Structures. In Martin Carrier & Peter K. Machamer (eds.), Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind. Pittsburgh University Press.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Peter Gärdenfors (1997). The Role of Memory in Planning and Pretense. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):24-25.
    Corresponding to Glenberg's distinction between the automatic and effortful modes of memory, I propose a distinction between cued and detached mental representations. A cued representation stands for something that is present in the external situation of the representing organism, while a detached representation stands for objects or events that are not present in the current situation. This distinction is important for understanding the role of memory in different cognitive functions like planning and pretense.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Peter Gärdenfors (1996). Conceptual Spaces as a Basis for Cognitive Semantics. In A. Clark, Jesus Ezquerro & J. M. Larrazabal (eds.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Kluwer. 159--180.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Peter Gardenfors (1996). Mental Representation, Conceptual Spaces and Metaphors. Synthese 106 (1):21-47.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Peter Gärdenfors (1996). Mental Representation, Conceptual Spaces and Metaphors. Synthese 106 (1):21 - 47.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Peter Gärdenfors (1993). On the Logic of Relevance. In. In J. Dubucs (ed.), Philosophy of Probability. Kluwer, Dordrecht. 35--54.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Peter Gärdenfors (1993). The Emergence of Meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (3):285 - 309.
  38. Peter Gärdenfors (1992). The Dynamics of Belief Systems: Foundations Versus Coherence Theories. In Cristina Bicchieri, Dalla Chiara & Maria Luisa (eds.), Knowledge, Belief, and Strategic Interaction. Cambridge University Press. 377.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Peter Gärdenfors, Sten Lindström, Michael Morreau & Wlodek Rabinowicz (1991). The Negative Ramsey Test. In André Fuhrmann & Michael Morreau (eds.), The Logic of Theory Change. Springer.
    The so called Ramsey test is a semantic recipe for determining whether a conditional proposition is acceptable in a given state of belief. Informally, it can be formulated as follows: (RT) Accept a proposition of the form "if A, then C" in a state of belief K, if and only if the minimal change of K needed to accept A also requires accepting C. In Gärdenfors (1986) it was shown that the Ramsey test is, in the context of some other (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. David Makinson & Peter Gärdenfors (1991). Relations Between the Logic of Theory Change and Nonmonotonic Logic. In. In André Fuhrmann & Michael Morreau (eds.), The Logic of Theory Change. Springer. 183--205.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Peter Gardenfors (1990). Belief Revision and Relevance. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:349 - 365.
    A general criterion for the theory of belief revision is that when we revise a state of belief by a sentence A, as much of the old information as possible should be retained in the revised state of belief. The motivating idea in this paper is that if a belief B is irrelevant to A, then B should still be believed in the revised state. The problem is that the traditional definition of statistical relevance suffers from some serious shortcomings and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Peter Gärdenfors (1990). An Epistemic Analysis of Explanations and Causal Beliefs. Topoi 9 (2):109-124.
    The analyses of explanation and causal beliefs are heavily dependent on using probability functions as models of epistemic states. There are, however, several aspects of beliefs that are not captured by such a representation and which affect the outcome of the analyses. One dimension that has been neglected in this article is the temporal aspect of the beliefs. The description of a single event naturally involves the time it occurred. Some analyses of causation postulate that the cause must not occur (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Peter Gärdenfors (1990). Induction, Conceptual Spaces and AI. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):78-95.
    A computational theory of induction must be able to identify the projectible predicates, that is to distinguish between which predicates can be used in inductive inferences and which cannot. The problems of projectibility are introduced by reviewing some of the stumbling blocks for the theory of induction that was developed by the logical empiricists. My diagnosis of these problems is that the traditional theory of induction, which started from a given (observational) language in relation to which all inductive rules are (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Peter Gardenfors (1990). Induction, Conceptual Spaces and AI. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):78 - 95.
    A computational theory of induction must be able to identify the projectible predicates, that is to distinguish between which predicates can be used in inductive inferences and which cannot. The problems of projectibility are introduced by reviewing some of the stumbling blocks for the theory of induction that was developed by the logical empiricists. My diagnosis of these problems is that the traditional theory of induction, which started from a given (observational) language in relation to which all inductive rules are (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Peter Gardenfors (1989). Is There Anything We Should Not Want to Know? In Jens Erik Fenstad, Ivan Timofeevich Frolov & Risto Hilpinen (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science Viii: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Moscow, 1987. Sole Distributors for the U.S.A. And Canada, Elsevier Science.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Peter Gärdenfors & Philip Pettit (1989). The Impossibility of a Paretian Loyalist. Theory and Decision 27 (3):207-216.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Peter Gärdenfors (1988). Semantics, Conceptual Spaces and the Dimensions of Music. In Veikko Rantala, Lewis Eugene Rowell & Eero Tarasti (eds.), Essays on the Philosophy of Music. Distributed by Akateeminen Kirjakauppa. 9--27.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Peter Gardenfors (1987). Godehard Link. In Peter Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel Publishing Company. 31--151.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Peter Gärdenfors (ed.) (1987). Generalized Quantifiers. Reidel Publishing Company.
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Peter Gärdenfors (1987). Variations on the Ramsey Test: More Triviality Results. Studia Logica 46 (4):319-325.
    The purpose of this note is to formulate some weaker versions of the so called Ramsey test that do not entail the following unacceptable consequenceIf A and C are already accepted in K, then if A, then C is also accepted in K. and to show that these versions still lead to the same triviality result when combined with a preservation criterion.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 77