Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-72csx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:15:44.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptual Symbols and Taxonomy Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Xiang Chen
Xiang Chen*
Affiliation:
California Lutheran University
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360–2787; email: chenxi@clunet.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many recent cognitive studies reveal that human cognition is inherently perceptual, sharing systems with perception at both the conceptual and the neural levels. This paper introduces Barsalou's theory of perceptual symbols and explores its implications for philosophy of science. If perceptual symbols lie in the heart of conceptual processing, the process of attribute selection during concept representation, which is critical for defining similarity and thus for comparing taxonomies, can no longer be determined solely by background beliefs. The analogous nature of perceptual symbols and the spatial nature of intraconceptual relations impose new constraints on attribute selection. These constraints help people with different background beliefs select compatible attributes, which constitute a common “platform” for taxonomy comparison.

Type
Theory-Ladeness and the Neurology of Perception
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue S3: No. 3 Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 2001 , 2001 , pp. S200 - S212
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 2001

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

Andersen, H., Barker, P., and Chen, X. (1996), “Kuhn's Mature Philosophy of Science and Cognitive Psychology”, Philosophical Psychology 9:347–363.10.1080/09515089608573188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1999), “Perceptual Symbol Systems”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:577–609.10.1017/S0140525X99002149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. and Hale, C. (1993), “Components of Conceptual Representation: From Feature–Lists to Recursive Frames”, in Mechelen, I., Hampton, J., Michalski, R., and Theuns, P. (eds.), Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis. New York: Academic Press, 97–144.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L., Solomon, K., and Wu, L. (1999), “Perceptual Simulation in Conceptual Tasks”, in Hiraga, M., Sinha, C., and Wilcox, S. (eds.), Cultural, Typological, and Psychological Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics: The Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209–228.10.1075/cilt.152.15barCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D., and Raven, P. (1974), Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chen, X. (1995), “Taxonomic Changes and the Particle-Wave Debate in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 26:251–271.10.1016/0039-3681(95)00001-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Andersen, H., and Barker, P. (1998), “Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Revolutions and Cognitive Psychology”, Philosophical Psychology 11:5–28.10.1080/09515089808573246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. and Barker, P. (2000), “Continuity Through Revolutions: A Frame-Based Account of Conceptual Change During Scientific Revolutions”, Philosophy of Science 67:S1–S9.10.1086/392820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis”, Cognition 28:3–71.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90031-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gainotti, G., Silveri, M., Daniele, A., and Giustolisi, L. (1995), “Neuroanatomical Correlates of Category-Specific Semantic Disorders: A Critical Survey”, Memory 3:247–264.10.1080/09658219508253153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, Thomas (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newton, A. (1893), A Dictionary of Birds. London: Adam and Charles Black.10.5962/bhl.title.48551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, H. (1975), “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’”, in Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language. Mind and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 215–271.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., and Boyes–Braem, P. (1976), “Basic Objects in Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 8:382–439.10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1980), “Minds, Brains, and Programs”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:417–424.10.1017/S0140525X00005756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, L. (1997), “Activating Representations in Permanent Memory: Different Benefits for Pictures and Words”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23:1106–1121.Google ScholarPubMed
Shapere, D. (1989), “Evolution and Continuity in Scientific Change”, Philosophy of Science 56:419–437.10.1086/289499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibley, C. and Ahlquist, J. (1990), Phytogeny and Classification of Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. and Hemenway, K. (1984), “Objects, Parts, and Categories”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113:169–193.10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed