comments

Clancey's ideas on new category creation are ill-founded

Clancey's ideas about the creation of new categories are too radical and are not supported by the research. Some relatively constant categories are necessary and their existence has been demonstrated in animals.

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
□
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