Symbol grounding problem

Harnad, Stevan

doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.2373

Cited by 475 publications

(641 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

626

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This allows data and/or algorithms to be activated and fired without the help of an external manipulator (cf. Anderson, 1996) and symbols to be grounded in experience (Harnad, 1990). vious paragraph, the word conscious was used as a predicate of the word goal, whereas in the present paragraph it is used as a predicate of the phrase stimulus input.…”

Section: Links Between Conscious and Goal-related Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Moors

Houwer

2006

Psychological Bulletin

1,214

859

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several theoretical views of automaticity are discussed. Most of these suggest that automaticity should be diagnosed by looking at the presence of features such as unintentional, uncontrolled/uncontrollable, goal independent, autonomous, purely stimulus driven, unconscious, efficient, and fast. Contemporary views further suggest that these features should be investigated separately. The authors examine whether features of automaticity can be disentangled on a conceptual level, because only then is the separate investigation of them worth the effort. They conclude that the conceptual analysis of features is to a large extent feasible. Not all researchers agree with this position, however. The authors show that assumptions of overlap among features are determined by the other researchers' views of automaticity and by the models they endorse for information processing in general. : automatic, unintentional, uncontrolled, autonomous, unconscious Automaticity is a concept with a long-standing history in psychology (e.g., James, 1890;Wundt, 1903). It has been invoked in domains as diverse as perception (MacLeod, 1991), memory (Jacoby, 1991), social cognition (Wegner & Bargh, 1998), learning (Cleeremans & Jiménez, 2002), motivation (Carver & Scheier, 2002), and emotion (Scherer, 1993). Despite its central nature, there is no consensus about what automaticity means. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of the concept and, in particular, the features that have been subsumed under the term. We also discuss implications of this analysis for future research. KeywordsIn the first section, we consider several contrasting views of automaticity. This overview reveals that most scholars analyze automaticity in terms of one or more features. The implication is that automaticity can be diagnosed by looking for the presence of these features in performance or processes. 1 Contemporary approaches to automaticity, moreover, have begun to argue for the separate investigation of automaticity features. In the second section, we discuss the most essential features in greater detail. One purpose is to examine whether they can be separated on a conceptual level. We analyze the features to a point at which the overlap among them is minimized. Another purpose is to show that assumptions of overlap are pervasive in the research literature despite the recent claim that individual features should be investigated separately. These assumptions arise from authors' specific views of automaticity, as well as from the specific underlying information-processing model that they endorse. Approaches to AutomaticityJames (1890), Jastrow (1906), and Wundt (1896/1897, 1903 offered some of the earliest descriptions of automaticity, and many of their ideas have reemerged in contemporary accounts. The views presented below are also based on early studies of skill development (Bryan & Harter, 1899) and early dual-task studies (Solomons & Stein, 1896; see review by Shiffrin, 1988). Automaticity as Processing With No or Minimal AttentionC...

show abstract

Section: Links Between Conscious and Goal-related Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Moors

Houwer

2006

Psychological Bulletin

1,214

859

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recognition of the symbol grounding problem (Harnad, 1990), most contemporary theories of conceptual processing assume that it relies at least partly on modalityspecific systems (e.g., Barsalou, 1999Barsalou, , 2008Barsalou, , 2016Binder & Desai, 2011;Meteyard, Cuadrado, Bahrami, & Vigliocco, 2012). Binder and colleagues (2016), for instance, have proposed a framework of conceptual processing based on a set of primitive experiential features that capture the various kinds of experience associated with a given concept (sensory, motor, affective, social, etc.).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A task-dependent causal role for low-level visual processes in spoken word comprehension.

Ostarek

Huettig

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that the comprehension of spoken words referring to object concepts relies on high-level visual areas in the ventral stream that build increasingly abstract representations. It is much less clear whether basic low-level visual representations are also involved. Here we asked in what task situations low-level visual representations contribute functionally to concrete word comprehension using an interference paradigm. We interfered with basic visual processing while participants performed a concreteness task (Experiment 1), a lexical-decision task (Experiment 2), and a word class judgment task (Experiment 3). We found that visual noise interfered more with concrete versus abstract word processing, but only when the task required visual information to be accessed. This suggests that basic visual processes can be causally involved in language comprehension, but that their recruitment is not automatic and rather depends on the type of information that is required in a given task situation.

show abstract

“…Most research into formal symbolic reasoning emphasizes the abstract and arbitrary quality of formal symbol systems (Fodor, 1975;Gentner, 2003;Harnad, 1990;Haugeland, 1985;Jackendoff, 1983;Markman & Dietrich, 2000a, 2000bSloman, 1996). Symbolic reasoning is proposed to depend on internal structural rules, which do not relate to explicit external forms (e.g., Harnad, 1990;Markman & Dietrich, 2000a, 2000b; this perspective is also taken specifically with regard to notational mathematics in Stylianou, 2002;Zazkis, Dubinsky, & Dautermann, 1996). Mathematical and especially algebraic reasoning is often taken to be the paradigmatic case of pure symbolic reasoning, and to rely for its successful execution on the use of internally available formal operations (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How abstract is symbolic thought?

Landy¹,

Goldstone²

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

153

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 experiments, the authors explored the role of visual layout in rule-based syntactic judgments. Participants judged the validity of a set of algebraic equations that tested their ability to apply the order of operations. In each experiment, a nonmathematical grouping pressure was manipulated to support or interfere with the mathematical convention. Despite the formal irrelevance of these grouping manipulations, accuracy in all experiments was highest when the nonmathematical pressure supported the mathematical grouping. The increase was significantly greater when the correct judgment depended on the order of operator precedence. The result that visual perception impacts rule application in mathematics has broad implications for relational reasoning in general. The authors conclude that formally symbolic reasoning is more visual than is usually proposed.Keywords: symbolic processing, mathematics, embodied cognition, relational reasoning, perceptual grouping How thinking creatures manage to think using symbols is one of the central mysteries facing the cognitive sciences. Most research into formal symbolic reasoning emphasizes the abstract and arbitrary quality of formal symbol systems (

show abstract

Symbol grounding problem

Cited by 475 publications

References 0 publications

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

A task-dependent causal role for low-level visual processes in spoken word comprehension.

How abstract is symbolic thought?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About