Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-d5ftd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-26T19:51:09.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eliminating the “concept” concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Stevan Harnad
Stevan Harnad
Affiliation:
Institut des Sciences Cognitives, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada, H3C 3P8; School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ Southampton, United Kingdom. harnad@ugam.ca http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Machery suggests that the concept of “concept” is too heterogeneous to serve as a “natural kind” for scientific explanation, so cognitive science should do without concepts. I second the suggestion and propose substituting, in place of concepts, inborn and acquired sensorimotor category-detectors and category-names combined into propositions that define and describe further categories.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 213 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4):577–660.Google Scholar
Blondin-Massé, A., Chicoisne, G., Gargouri, Y., Harnad, S., Picard, O. & Marcotte, O. (2008) How is meaning grounded in dictionary definitions? Paper presented at TextGraphs-3 Workshop – 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 18 August 2008.Google Scholar
Cangelosi, A. & Harnad, S. (2001) The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. Evolution of Communication 4(1):117–14.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Robertson, D. A. (2000) Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43:379–401.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42:335–46.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (2005) To cognize is to categorize: cognition is categorization. In: Handbook of Categorization, ed. Lefebvre, C. & Cohen, H., pp. 20–42. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (2006) Cohabitation: Computation at 70, cognition at 20. In: Essays in Honour of Zenon Pylyshyn, ed. Dedrick, D.. pp. 245–57. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (2007) From knowing how to knowing that: Acquiring categories by word of mouth. Paper presented at the Kaziemierz Naturalized Epistemology Workshop (KNEW), Kaziemierz, Poland, September 2, 2007.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (2008) The annotation game: On Turing (1950) on computing, machinery and intelligence. In: Parsing the Turing test: Philosophical and methodological issues in the quest for the thinking computer, ed. Epstein, R. & Peters, G., pp. 23–66. Springer.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973) What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin 80:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. & Cooper, L. A. (1982) Mental images and their transformations. MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 49:433–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar