Afferent isn't efferent, and language isn't logic, either

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (3):286-287 (2003)
Abstract
Hurford's argument suffers from two major weaknesses. First, his account of neural mechanisms suggests no place in the brain where the two halves of a predicate-argument structure could come together. Second, his assumption that language and cognition must be based on logic is neither necessary nor particularly plausible, and leads him to some unlikely conclusions.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X0325007X
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,581
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Artificial Intelligence and Personal Identity.David J. Cole - 1991 - Synthese 88 (September):399-417.
Why There Still Are No People.Jim Stone - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):174-191.
Consciousness, Attention and Commonsense.F. de Brigard - 2010 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 17 (9-10):189-201.
Cognitive Suicide.Lynne Rudder Baker - 1988 - In Robert H. Grimm & D. D. Merrill (eds.), Contents of Thought. University of Arizona Press. pp. 401--13.
Language Isn't Quite That Special.Joanna J. Bryson - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):679-680.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
8 ( #573,255 of 2,268,379 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #211,892 of 2,268,379 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature