Linguistics and the Parts of the Mind: Or How to Build a Machine Worth Talking To

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (3):625-628 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Volume 97, Issue 3, September 2019, Page 625-628.

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/00048402.2018.1555712

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Are you a machine?: the brain, the mind, and what it means to be human.Eliezer J. Sternberg - 2007 - Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books.
Intelligence is not enough: On the socialization of talking machines. [REVIEW]E. Ronald & Moshe Sipper - 2001 - Minds and Machines 11 (4):567-576.
That useless time machine.Roberto Casati & Achille Varzi - 2001 - Philosophy 76 (4):581-583.
How to Build a Conscious Machine.Leonard Angel - 1989 - Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Reference: interdisciplinary perspectives.Jeanette K. Gundel & Nancy Ann Hedberg (eds.) - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press.
A Forgotten Source in the History of Linguistics: Husserl's Logical Investigations.Simone Aurora - 2015 - Bulletin d'Analyse Phénoménologique 11.
Epistemological observations about mind-machine equivalence.Farzad Didehvar & Mohammad Saleh Zareepour - 2007
War and morality I © 1999 Tony gray and.Robert Streiffer - manuscript
Friederike Moltmann, parts and wholes in semantics.Fabio Pianesi - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (1):97-120.
Machine as mind.Herbert A. Simon - 1995 - In Peter Millican & Andy Clark (eds.), Android Epistemology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Are You a Machine?: The Brain, the Mind, and What It Means to Be Human. [REVIEW]Dennis Weiss - 2008 - Questions 8:14-14.
The examined life: outline of a neo-socratic argument.Jo Mintoff - unknown
The ontological argument against the mind-machine hypothesis.Beth Preston - 1995 - Philosophical Studies 80 (2):131-57.
What does the Turing test really mean? And how many human beings (including Turing) could pass?Tyler Cowen & Michelle Dawson - unknown
The search for mind: a new foundation for cognitive science.Seán Ó Nualláin - 1995 - Portland, OR: Intellect.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-01-22

Downloads
22 (#703,858)

6 months
7 (#419,635)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
Mathematical Knowledge : Motley and Complexity of Proof.Akihiro Kanamori - 2013 - Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 21:21-35.

Add more references