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