Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:49:23.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic sets of potentially interchangeable connotations: A theory of mental objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

Alexandre Linhares
Alexandre Linhares
Affiliation:
Getulio Vargas Foundation, Rio de Janeiro 22250-900, Brazil. [email protected]://www.intuition-sciences.com/linhares
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analogy-making is an ability with which we can abstract from surface similarities and perceive deep, meaningful similarities between different mental objects and situations. I propose that mental objects are dynamically changing sets of potentially interchangeable connotations. Unfortunately, most models of analogy seem devoid of both semantics and relevance-extraction, postulating analogy as a one-to-one mapping devoid of connotation transfer.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 389 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambrose, S. E. (1998) Citizen soldiers. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J., French, R. M. & Hofstadter, D. R. (1992) High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 4:185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books.
French, R. M. (2000) When coffee cups are like old elephants, or why representation modules don't make sense. In: Understanding representation in the cognitive sciences: Does representation need reality? ed. Riegler, A., Peschl, M. & von Stein, A., pp. 93–100. Springer.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. (2001) Epilogue: Analogy as the core of cognition. In: The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, ed. Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J. & Kokinov, B. N., pp. 499–538. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. & the Fluid Analogies Research Group (1995) Fluid concepts and creative; computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought analogies. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Linhares, A. (2000) A glimpse at the metaphysics of Bongard problems. Artificial Intelligence 121 (1–2):251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linhares, A. (2005) An active symbols theory of chess intuition. Minds and Machines 15(2):131–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linhares, A. (submitted) Decision-making and strategic thinking through analogies.Google Scholar
Linhares, A. & Brum, P. (2007) Understanding our understanding of strategic scenarios: What role do chunks play? Cognitive Science 31(6):989–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagonis, W. G. & Cruikshank, J. L. (1994) Moving mountains. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981) Reason, truth, and history. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. C. (1996) On the origin of objects. MIT Press.Google Scholar