comments

Clancey's account of symbols is too limited

Clancey errs in his criticism of the symbol systems hypothesis and in his claims for situated action.

Alonso Vera & Herbert Simon (1993c).
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Representationalist Assumption
⌃
The representational tradition is flawed
⌃
The Situated Action Paradigm
⌃
The mechanisms situated action describes are symbol systems
⌃
More to human thought than symbol maniputation
■
Clancey's account of symbols is too limited
↳
Clancey's ideas on new category creation are ill-founded
↳
Symbol systems aren't confined to linguistic symbols
↳
The situated action paradigm is untestable
⇥
Herbert Simon
□
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip