Minds and Machines 29 (2):227-237 (2019)

Authors
William J. Rapaport
State University of New York, Buffalo
Abstract
A response to a recent critique by Cem Bozşahin of the theory of syntactic semantics as it applies to Helen Keller, and some applications of the theory to the philosophy of computer science.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11023-018-9485-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,916
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - University of Chicago Press.
The Language of Thought.Jerry A. Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.
Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Noam Chomsky - 1965 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

View all 542 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room.Jason Ford - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (1):57-72.
Semiotic Systems, Computers, and the Mind: How Cognition Could Be Computing.William J. Rapaport - 2012 - International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems 2 (1):32-71.
Consciousness and the Computer: A Reply to Henley.Benny Shanon - 1991 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 12 (3):371-375.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-12-19

Total views
37 ( #304,460 of 2,497,793 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #283,405 of 2,497,793 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes