Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:36:28.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic redintegration: Ecological invariance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2008

Stephen E. Robbins
Stephen E. Robbins
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Product Engineering, Metavante Corporation, Milwaukee, WI 53224. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In proposing that their model can operate in the concrete, perceptual world, Rogers & McClelland (R&M) have not done justice to the complexities of the ecological sphere and its invariance laws. The structure of concrete events forces a different framework, both for retrieval of events and concepts defined across events, than that upon which the proposed model, rooted in essence in the verbal learning tradition, implicitly rests.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 726 - 727
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

French, R. M. (1990) Sub-cognition and the limits of the Turing test. Mind 99:53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, R. M. (1999) When coffee cups are like old elephants, or why representation modules don't make sense. In: Understanding representation in the cognitive sciences, ed. Riegler, A., Peshl, M. & von Stein, A., pp. 158–63. Plenum.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2):155–70.Google Scholar
Kugler, P. & Turvey, M. (1987) Information, natural law, and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L. & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995) Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review 102:419–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGeoch, J. A. (1942) The psychology of human learning. Longman, Greene.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1971) Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. E. (2002) Semantics, experience and time. Cognitive Systems Research 3:301–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, S. E. (2004) On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13:762–88.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. E. (2006a) On the possibility of direct memory. In: New developments in consciousness research, ed. Fallio, V. W., pp. 1–64. Nova Science.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. E. (2006b) Bergson and the holographic theory of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 5:365–94.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. E. (2007) Time, form and the limits of qualia. Journal of Mind and Behavior 28:19–43.Google Scholar
Rogers, T. T. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Whiting, H. T. & Bootsma, R. J. (1991) Grasping tau. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17:315–22.Google Scholar
Turvey, M. & Carello, C. (1995) Dynamic touch. In: Perception of space and motion, ed. Epstein, W. & Rogers, S., pp. 401–90. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wigner, E. P. (1970) Symmetries and reflections. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Woit, P. (2006) Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2000) Explanation and invariance in the special sciences. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51:197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. (2001) Law and explanation in biology: Invariance is the kind of stability that matters. Philosophy of Science 68:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar