Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 411–465 | Cite as

Book reviews

  • David L. Kemmerer
  • Kenneth Aizawa
  • Donald H. Berman
  • Stacey L. Edgar
  • James E. Tomberlin
  • J. Christopher Maloney
  • John L. Bell
  • Stuart C. Shapiro
  • Georges Rey
  • Morton L. Schagrin
  • Robert A. Wilson
  • Patrick J. Hayes
Article
  • 57 Downloads

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barkow, Jerome, Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John, eds. (1992),The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates, Elizabeth (in press), ‘Modularity, Domain Specificity, and the Development of Language’,Discussions in Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellugi, Ursula, Bihrle, Amy, Jernigan, Terry, Trauner, Doris, and Doherty, Sally (1991), ‘Neuropsychological, Neurological, and Neuroanatomical Profile of Williams Syndrome’,American Journal of Medical Genetics, Supplement 6, pp. 115–125.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bickerton, Derek (1984), ‘The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7, pp. 173–221.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braine, Martin (1992), ‘What Kind of Innate Structure is Needed to Bootstrap into Syntax?’,Cognition 45, pp. 77–100.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buss, David (1994),The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandler, Steve (1993), ‘Are Rules and Modules Really Necessary for Explaining Language?’,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22, pp. 593–606.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cromer, Richard (1991),Language and Thought in Normal and Handicapped Children, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gopnik, Myrna, and Crago, Martha B. (1991), ‘Familial Aggregation of a Developmental Language Disorder’,Cognition 39, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon, Peter (1985), ‘Level-Ordering in Lexical Development’,Cognition 21, pp. 73–93.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kornai, Andras, and Pullum, Geoffrey (1990), ‘The X-Bar Theory of Phrase Structure’,Language 66, pp. 24–50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marchman, Virginia (1993), ‘Constraints on Plasticity in a Connectionist Model of the English Past Tense’,Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5, pp. 215–234.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCawley, James D. (1989), ‘INFL, Spec, and Other Fabulous Beasts’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, pp. 350–352.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinker, Steven (1994), ‘On Language’,Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 6, pp. 92–97.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinker, Steven, and Bloom, Paul (1990), ‘Natural Language and Natural Selection’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, pp. 707–784.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tooby, John, and Cosmides, Leda (1995), ‘Mapping the Evolved Functional Organization of Mind and Brain’, in M. Gazzaniga, ed.,The Cognitive Neurosciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1185–1197.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Valin, Robert D. (1993), ‘A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar’, in R.D. Van Valin (ed.),Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–164.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vargha-Khadem, F., and Passingham, R. E. (1990), ‘Speech and Language Defects’,Nature 346, p. 226.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright, Robert (1994),The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

References

  1. 20.
    Dretske, Fred (1988),Explaining Behavior, Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 21.
    Fodor, Jerry (1975),The Language of Thought, New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  3. 22.
    Fodor, Jerry, and Pylyshyn, Zenon (1988), ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis’,Cognitive 28: 3–71.Google Scholar
  4. 23.
    Searle, John R. (1990), ‘Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?’Scientific American (January 1990): 26–31.Google Scholar

References

  1. 24.
    Ashley, Kevin D, and Aleven, Vincent (1991), ‘Toward an Intelligent Tutoring System for Teaching Law Students to Argue with Cases’,Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 42–52.Google Scholar
  2. 25.
    Ashley, Kevin D., and Aleven, Vincent (1992), ‘Generating Dialectical Examples Automatically’,Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92; San Jose, CA), Menlo Park CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press, pp. 654–660.Google Scholar
  3. 26.
    Berman, Donald (1991). ‘Developer's Choices in the Legal Domain: The Sisyphean Journey with CBR or Down Hill with Rules’,Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 307–309.Google Scholar
  4. 27.
    Berman, Donald (1989), ‘The Need for a Medium Grain Choice of Law Filter in Certain Legal Expert Systems’, in A. Martino, ed.,Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Logica Informatica Diritto. Florence: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar
  5. 28.
    Berman, Donald, and Hafner, Carole (1991), ‘Incorporating Procedural Context into a Model of Case-Based Legal Reasoning’,Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 12–20.Google Scholar
  6. 29.
    Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1992),What Computers Still Can't Do, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. 30.
    Gardner, Anne (1987),An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. 31.
    Simon, Herbert A. (1977), ‘Artificial Intelligence Systems that Understand’,Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-77, MIT), Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University Department of Computer Science, pp. 1059–1073.Google Scholar
  9. 31.
    Weizenbaum, Joseph (1976),Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar

References

  1. 32.
    Brown, Geoffrey (1991), ‘Is There an Ethics of Computing?’,Journal of Applied Philosophy 8: 19–26.Google Scholar
  2. 33.
    Ermann, M. David, Williams, Mary B., and Gutierrez, Claudio, eds. (1990),Computers, Ethics, and Society New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 34.
    Forester, Tom, and Morrison, Perry (1990),Computer Ethics, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 35.
    Kallman, Ernest A. (1991), ‘Computer Ethics: Two Complementary Perspectives’,Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 319–331.Google Scholar
  5. 36.
    Moor, James (1991), Review of Forester and Morrison 1990,Minds and Machines 1: 230–232.Google Scholar
  6. 37.
    Stoll, Clifford (1989),The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. 38.
    Wieckert, Kären (1991), Review of Ermannet al. 1990,Minds and Machines 1: 343–347.Google Scholar

References

  1. 39.
    Burge, Tyler (1977), ‘BeliefDe Re’,Journal of Philosophy 74, pp. 338–362.Google Scholar
  2. 40.
    Burge, Tyler (1983), ‘Russell's Problem and Intentional Identity’, in J. E. Tomberlin, ed.,Agent, Language, and the Structure of the World, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., pp. 79–110.Google Scholar
  3. 41.
    Castañeda, Hector-Neri (1966), ‘“He”: On the Logic of Self-Consciousness’,Ratio 8, pp. 130–157.Google Scholar
  4. 42.
    Castañeda, Hector-Neri (1967), ‘Indicators and Quasi-Indicators’,American Philosophical Quarterly 4, pp. 85–100.Google Scholar
  5. 43.
    Castañeda, Hector-Neri (1989),Thinking, Language, and Experience, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. 44.
    Fitch, G.W. (1993), ‘Non Denoting’, in J. E. Tomberlin, ed.,Philosophical Perspectives 7, pp. 461–486.Google Scholar
  7. 45.
    Kaplan, David (1975), ‘How to Russell a Frege-Church’,Journal of Philosophy 72, pp. 716–729.Google Scholar
  8. 46.
    Perry, John (1979), ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical’,Noûs 13, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  9. 47.
    Salmon, Nathan (1986),Frege's Puzzle, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 48.
    Tomberlin, James E. (1988), ‘Semantics, Psychological Attitudes, and Conceptual Role’,Philosophical Studies 53, pp. 205–226.Google Scholar
  11. 49.
    Tomberlin, James E. (1991), ‘Belief, Self-Ascription, and Ontology’, in E. Villanueva, ed.,Philosophical Issues, Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, pp. 233–259.Google Scholar
  12. 50.
    Tomberlin, James E. (forthcoming), ‘Ontology and Possiblia’,Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar

References

  1. 51.
    Bell, Eric Temple (1945),The Development of Mathematics, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. 52.
    Eilenberg, Samuel, and MacLane, Saunders (1945), ‘General Theory of Natural Equivalences’,Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 58, pp. 231–294.Google Scholar

References

  1. 53.
    Brachman, Ronald J. (1979), ‘On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks’, in Findler 1979, pp. 3–50; reprinted in Brachman & Levesque 1985, pp. 191–215.Google Scholar
  2. 54.
    Brachman, Ronald J. (1985), ‘“I Lied about the Trees” Or, Defaults and Definitions in Knowledge Representation’,AI Magazine 6(3), pp. 80–93.Google Scholar
  3. 55.
    Brachman, Ronald J. & Levesque, Hector J., eds. (1985),Readings in Knowledge Representation, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  4. 56.
    Brachman, Ronald J. & Schmolze, J. (1985), ‘An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System’,Cognitive Science 9, pp. 171–216.Google Scholar
  5. 57.
    Davis, Ernst (1990),Representations of Commonsense Knowledge, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. 58.
    Findler, Nicholas V., ed. (1979),Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. 59.
    Hendrix, Gary (1979), ‘Encoding Knowledge in Partitioned Networks’, in Findler 1979, pp. 51–92.Google Scholar
  8. 60.
    Maida, Anthony S. & Shapiro, Stuart C. (1982), ‘Intensional Concepts in Propositional Semantic Networks’,Cognitive Science 6, pp. 291–330; reprinted in Brachman & Levesque 1985, pp. 169–189.Google Scholar
  9. 61.
    Quillian, M. Ross (1968), ‘Semantic Memory’, in M. Minsky, ed.,Semantic Information Processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 227–270.Google Scholar
  10. 62.
    Shapiro, Stuart C. (1979), ‘The SNePS Semantic Network Processing System’, in Findler 1979, pp. 179–203.Google Scholar
  11. 63.
    Shapiro, Stuart C. & Rapaport, William J. (1987), ‘SNePS Considered as a Fully Intensional Propositional Semantic Network’, in N. Cerone & G. McCalla, eds.,The Knowledge Frontier: Essays in the Representation of Knowledge, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 262–315.Google Scholar
  12. 64.
    Shapiro, Stuart C. & Rapaport, William J. (1992), ‘The SNePS Family’,Computers and Mathematics with Applications 23, pp. 243–275, reprinted in F. Lehmann, ed.,Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1992, pp. 243–275.Google Scholar
  13. 65.
    Smith, Barry (1994), Review of Davis 1990,Minds and Machines 4, pp. 245–249.Google Scholar
  14. 66.
    Smith, Brian Cantwell (1982), ‘Reflection and Semantics in a Procedural Language’,Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-272, Cambridge, MA: MIT; prologue reprinted in Brachman & Levesque 1985, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
  15. 67.
    Woods, William A. (1975), ‘What's in a Link’, in D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins, eds.,Representation and Understanding, New York: Academic Press, pp. 35–82, reprinted in Brachman & Levesque 1985, pp. 217–241.Google Scholar

References

  1. 68.
    Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John (1983),Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 69.
    Devitt, Michael (1984),Realism and Truth, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. 70.
    Dretske, Fred (1988),Explaining Behavior: Reasons in a World of Causes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 71.
    Fodor, Jerry (1975),The Language of Thought, New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  5. 72.
    Fodor, Jerry (1991),A Theory of Content, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. 73.
    Heinämaa, Sara (1993), Review of Fodor 1991,Minds and Machines 3, pp. 362–369.Google Scholar
  7. 74.
    Katz, Jerrod J. (1981),Language and Other Abstract Objects, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. 75.
    Lewis, David (1972), ‘General Semantics’, in Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, eds.,Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 169–218.Google Scholar
  9. 76.
    Marr, David (1982),Vision, San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  10. 77.
    Millikan, Ruth (1984),Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. 78.
    Montague, Richard (1973), ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes, eds.,Approaches to Natural Language, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
  12. 79.
    Putnam, Hilary (1960), ‘Minds and Machines’, reprinted in Hilary Putnam,Mind, Language, and Reality, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. 80.
    Putnam, Hilary (1975), ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’, reprinted in Hilary Putnam,Mind, Language, and Reality, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 81.
    Stampe, Dennis (1977), ‘Towards a Causal Theory of Linguistic Representation’,Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 42–63.Google Scholar
  15. 82.
    Quine, W. V. (1953), ‘On What There Is’, in W. V. Quine,From a Logical Point of View, New York, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  16. 83.
    Shoemaker, Sydney (1984),Identity, Cause, and Mind, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 84.
    Smart, J. J. C. (1962/1991), ‘Sensations and Brain Processes’, reprinted in David Rosenthal, ed.,The Nature of Mind, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 85.
    Stalnaker, Robert C. (1984),Inquiry, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

References

  1. 86.
    Harman, Gilbert (1965), ‘The Inference to the Best Explanation’,Philosophical Review 74, pp. 88–95.Google Scholar
  2. 87.
    Peirce, Charles Sanders (1955),Philosophical Writings of Peirce, J. Buchler, ed., New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  3. 88.
    Thagard, Paul (1992),Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

References

  1. 89.
    Cummins, Robert C. (1989),Meaning and Mental Representation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 90.
    Perlis, Donald (1991), ‘Putting One's Foot in One's Head — Part I: Why’,Noûs 25: 435–455.Google Scholar
  3. 91.
    Searle, John R. (1980), ‘Minds, Brains, and Programs’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–457.Google Scholar
  4. 92.
    Searle, John R. (1992),The Rediscovery of the Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 93.
    Wilson, Robert A. (1995),Cartesian Psychology and Physical Minds: Individualism and the Sciences of the Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Kemmerer
    • 1
  • Kenneth Aizawa
    • 2
  • Donald H. Berman
    • 3
  • Stacey L. Edgar
    • 4
  • James E. Tomberlin
    • 5
  • J. Christopher Maloney
    • 6
  • John L. Bell
    • 7
  • Stuart C. Shapiro
    • 8
  • Georges Rey
    • 9
  • Morton L. Schagrin
    • 10
  • Robert A. Wilson
    • 11
  • Patrick J. Hayes
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive ScienceState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyCentenary CollegeShreveportUSA
  3. 3.School of Law and Center for Law and Computer ScienceNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophyState University of New York, College at GeneseoGeneseoUSA
  5. 5.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State University, NorthridgeNorthridgeUSA
  6. 6.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  7. 7.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  8. 8.Department of Computer Science and Center for Cognitive ScienceState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  9. 9.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  10. 10.Department of PhilosophyState University of New York, College at FredoniaFredoniaUSA
  11. 11.Department of PhilosophyQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada
  12. 12.Beckman InstituteUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations