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).
Immediately related elementsHow this works
-
Artificial Intelligence »Artificial Intelligence
▲
Can computers think? [1] »Can computers think? [1]
▲
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3] »Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
▲
The Representationalist Assumption »The Representationalist Assumption
▲
The representational tradition is flawed »The representational tradition is flawed
▲
The Situated Action Paradigm »The Situated Action Paradigm
▲
The mechanisms situated action describes are symbol systems »The mechanisms situated action describes are symbol systems
▲
More to human thought than symbol maniputation »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 »Clancey's ideas on new category creation are ill-founded
●
Symbol systems aren't confined to linguistic symbols »Symbol systems aren't confined to linguistic symbols
●
The situated action paradigm is untestable »The situated action paradigm is untestable
◄
Herbert Simon »Herbert Simon
+Komentarai (0)
+Citavimą (0)
+About