ONLY Margolis — The Conceptual Mind El 19 All Concepts Are Ad Hoc Concepts
ONLY Margolis — The Conceptual Mind El 19 All Concepts Are Ad Hoc Concepts
复制标题
ONLY Margolis — 概念思维 El 19 所有概念都是临时概念
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Daniel Casasanto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Daniel Casasanto
为了解释人们如何思考和交流，认知科学家提出了一个概念，类别和单词含义的存储库，这些概念，类别和单词含义在整个时间稳定并在个人之间共享。但是，如果概念稳定，人们如何如此灵活地使用它们呢？在这里，我们探讨了一个可能的答案：也许这种稳定是一种幻想。也许每次使用它们时，所有概念，类别和单词含义（CC＆MS）都是临时构建的。在这个建议中，我们称为Ad hoc认知（AHC）框架，所有单词都是无限的多序言，所有沟通都“足够好”，而且不知道两次是相同的。人们的临时CC＆MS的细节取决于检索提示（例如单词）与物理，社会和语言背景的相互作用的方式。跨CC＆MS实例化的共同点会产生一些紧急的稳定性，并产生与上下文无关的核心特性的幻想。在这里，我们认为，即使是最稳定的CC＆MS，也是通过与更明显临时的过程实例化的，并且它们从给定的实例化中的一个微秒到下一个，从一个实例化到一个实例化，从一个微秒到下一个，从一个实例化到）一个人内的下一个，以及（c）从人到小组到小组，是人们的体验历史的函数。如果这是真的，那么关于语言和认知的研究的核心目标应该是阐明人们实际使用的短暂，特质的神经认知表征，而不是辨别与上下文无关的CC＆MS的性质和起源，这是，这，这是，这是，这是人们的性质和起源我们认为，仅作为理论抽象存在。思维取决于大脑，大脑总是在变化。因此，思想总是在变化。与其试图解释概念，类别和单词含义是我们在思想中所拥有的事物，例如精神词典或心理百科全书中的条目，还可以更富有成果我们与我们的思想一起做。
To explain how people think and communicate, cognitive scientists posit a repository of concepts, categories, and word meanings that are stable across time and shared across individuals. But if concepts are stable, how can people use them so flexibly? Here we explore a possible answer: maybe this stability is an illusion. Perhaps all concepts , categories, and word meanings (CC&Ms) are constructed ad hoc, each time we use them. On this proposal, which we call the ad hoc cognition (AHC) framework, all words are infinitely polysemous, all communication is " good enough, " and no idea is ever the same twice. The details of people's ad hoc CC&Ms are determined by the way retrieval cues (such as words) interact with the physical, social, and linguistic context. Commonalities across instantiations of CC&Ms yield some emergent stability and create the illusion of context-independent core properties. Here we argue that even the most stable-seeming CC&Ms are instantiated via the same processes as those that are more obviously ad hoc, and they vary (a) from one microsecond to the next within a given instantiation, (b) from one instantiation to the next within an individual , and (c) from person to person and group to group as a function of people's experiential history. If this is true, then a central goal of research on language and cognition should be to elucidate the fleeting, idiosyncratic neurocognitive representations that people actually use for thinking and communicating, rather than to discern the nature and origin of context-independent CC&Ms, which, we argue, only exist as theoretical abstractions. Thinking depends on brains, and brains are always changing ; therefore thoughts are always changing. Rather than trying to explain concepts, categories, and word meanings as things that we have in our minds, like entries in a mental dictionary or mental encyclopedia, it may be more fruitful to build theories of conceptualizing, categorizing, and constructing word meanings: things that we do with our minds.
影响因子：
0.8
作者：
Allott N
通讯作者：
Allott N