Перевод: с английского на все языки

со всех языков на английский

Со всех языков на:
Английский
С английского на:
Все языки
Немецкий
Русский

modern logic

Толкование Перевод

1 Logic

   1) The Science of Logic Finds Ordinary Language to Be an Obstacle

   My initial step... was to attempt to reduce the concept of ordering in a sequence to that of logical consequence, so as to proceed from there to the concept of number. To prevent anything intuitive from penetrating here unnoticed, I had to bend every effort to keep the chain of inference free of gaps. In attempting to comply with this requirement in the strictest possible way, I found the inadequacy of language to be an obstacle. (Frege, 1972, p. 104)

   2) Logic Is a Microscope

   I believe I can make the relation of my 'conceptual notation' to ordinary language clearest if I compare it to the relation of the microscope to the eye. The latter, because of the range of its applicability and because of the ease with which it can adapt itself to the most varied circumstances, has a great superiority over the microscope. Of course, viewed as an optical instrument it reveals many imperfections, which usually remain unnoticed only because of its intimate connection with mental life. But as soon as scientific purposes place strong requirements upon sharpness of resolution, the eye proves to be inadequate.... Similarly, this 'conceptual notation' is devised for particular scientific purposes; and therefore one may not condemn it because it is useless for other purposes. (Frege, 1972, pp. 104-105)

   3) Logic Carries on an Unceasing Struggle with Psychology

   To sum up brieﬂy, it is the business of the logician to conduct an unceasing struggle against psychology and those parts of language and grammar which fail to give untrammeled expression to what is logical. He does not have to answer the question: How does thinking normally take place in human beings? What course does it naturally follow in the human mind? What is natural to one person may well be unnatural to another. (Frege, 1979, pp. 6-7)

   4) Logic Should Replace the Ordinary Language of Everyday Discourse

   We are very dependent on external aids in our thinking, and there is no doubt that the language of everyday life-so far, at least, as a certain area of discourse is concerned-had first to be replaced by a more sophisticated instrument, before certain distinctions could be noticed. But so far the academic world has, for the most part, disdained to master this instrument. (Frege, 1979, pp. 6-7)

   5) Logic Is Unnatural

   There is no reproach the logician need fear less than the reproach that his way of formulating things is unnatural.... If we were to heed those who object that logic is unnatural, we would run the risk of becoming embroiled in interminable disputes about what is natural, disputes which are quite incapable of being resolved within the province of logic. (Frege, 1979, p. 128)

   6) The Significance of " Baby Logic" for Linguistics

   [L]inguists will be forced, internally as it were, to come to grips with the results of modern logic. Indeed, this is apparently already happening to some extent. By "logic" is not meant here recursive function-theory, California model-theory, constructive proof-theory, or even axiomatic settheory. Such areas may or may not be useful for linguistics. Rather under "logic" are included our good old friends, the homely locutions "and," "or," "if-then," "if and only if," "not," "for all x," "for some x," and "is identical with," plus the calculus of individuals, event-logic, syntax, denotational semantics, and... various parts of pragmatics.... It is to these that the linguist can most profitably turn for help. These are his tools. And they are "clean tools," to borrow a phrase of the late J. L. Austin in another context, in fact, the only really clean ones we have, so that we might as well use them as much as we can. But they constitute only what may be called "baby logic." Baby logic is to the linguist what "baby mathematics" (in the phrase of Murray Gell-Mann) is to the theoretical physicist-very elementary but indispensable domains of theory in both cases. (Martin, 1969, pp. 261-262)

   7) The Existence of a Mental Logic Denied

   There appears to be no branch of deductive inference that requires us to assume the existence of a mental logic in order to do justice to the psychological phenomena. To be logical, an individual requires, not formal rules of inference, but a tacit knowledge of the fundamental semantic principle governing any inference; a deduction is valid provided that there is no way of interpreting the premises correctly that is inconsistent with the conclusion. Logic provides a systematic method for searching for such counter-examples. The empirical evidence suggests that ordinary individuals possess no such methods. (Johnson-Laird, quoted in Mehler, Walker & Garrett, 1982, p. 130)

   8) The Fundamental Paradox of Logic

   The fundamental paradox of logic [that "there is no class (as a totality) of those classes which, each taken as a totality, do not belong to themselves" (Russell to Frege, 16 June 1902, in van Heijenoort, 1967, p. 125)] is with us still, bequeathed by Russell-by way of philosophy, mathematics, and even computer science-to the whole of twentieth-century thought. Twentieth-century philosophy would begin not with a foundation for logic, as Russell had hoped in 1900, but with the discovery in 1901 that no such foundation can be laid. (Everdell, 1997, p. 184)

Historical dictionary of quotations in cognitive science > Logic
2 Modern Uses of Logic in Law

Юридический термин: Применение современных логических методов в праве (ежеквартальный журнал, 1962-1966)

Универсальный англо-русский словарь > Modern Uses of Logic in Law
3 Logical Positivism

    The Question of the Validity and Justification of Metaphysics

   There have been many opponents of metaphysics from the Greek sceptics to the empiricists of the nineteenth century. Criticisms of very diverse kinds have been set forth. Many have declared that the doctrine of metaphysics is false, since it contradicts our empirical knowledge. Others have believed it to be uncertain, on the ground that its problems transcend the limits of human knowledge. Many anti-metaphysicians have declared that occupation with metaphysical questions is sterile. Whether or not these questions can be answered, it is at any rate unnecessary to worry about them; let us devote ourselves entirely to the practical tasks which confront active men every day of their lives!

   The development of modern logic has made it possible to give a new and sharper answer to the question of the validity and justification of metaphysics. The researchers of applied logic or the theory of knowledge, which aim at clarifying the cognitive content of scientific statements and thereby the meanings of the terms that occur in the statements, by means of logical analysis, lead to a positive and to a negative result. The positive result is worked out in the domain of empirical science; the various concepts of the various branches of science are clarified; their formal, logical and epistemological connections are made explicit.

   In the domain of metaphysics, including all philosophy of value and normative theory, logical analysis yields the negative result that the al leged statements in this domain are entirely meaningless. Therewith a radical elimination of metaphysics is attained, which was not yet possible from the earlier anti-metaphysical standpoints. (Carnap, 1959, p. 60)

Historical dictionary of quotations in cognitive science > Logical Positivism
4 Boole, George

SUBJECT AREA: Electronics and information technology

[br]

b. 2 November 1815 Lincoln, England

d. 8 December 1864 Ballintemple, Coounty Cork, Ireland

[br]

English mathematician whose development of symbolic logic laid the foundations for the operating principles of modern computers.

[br]

Boole was the son of a tradesman, from whom he learned the principles of mathematics and optical-component manufacturing. From the early age of 16 he taught in a number of schools in West Yorkshire, and when only 20 he opened his own school in Lincoln. There, at the Mechanical Institute, he avidly read mathematical journals and the works of great mathematicians such as Lagrange, Laplace and Newton and began to tackle a variety of algebraic problems. This led to the publication of a constant stream of original papers in the newly launched Cambridge Mathematical Journal on topics in the fields of algebra and calculus, for which in 1844 he received the Royal Society Medal.

In 1847 he wrote The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, which applied algebraic symbolism to logical forms, whereby the presence or absence of properties could be represented by binary states and combined, just like normal algebraic equations, to derive logical statements about a series of operations. This laid the foundations for the binary logic used in modern computers, which, being based on binary on-off devices, greatly depend on the use of such operations as "and", "nand" ("not and"), "or" and "nor" ("not or"), etc. Although he lacked any formal degree, this revolutionary work led to his appointment in 1849 to the Chair of Mathematics at Queen's College, Cork, where he continued his work on logic and also produce treatises on differential equations and the calculus of finite differences.

[br]

Principal Honours and Distinctions

Royal Society Medal 1844. FRS 1857.

Bibliography

Boole's major contributions to logic available in republished form include George Boole: Investigation of the Laws of Thought, Dover Publications; George Boole: Laws of Thought, Open Court, and George Boole: Studies in Logic \& Probability, Open Court.

1872, A Treatise on Differential Equations.

Further Reading

W.Kneale, 1948, "Boole and the revival of logic", Mind 57:149.

G.C.Smith (ed.), 1982, George Boole \& Augustus de Morgan. Correspondence 1842– 1864, Oxford University Press.

—, 1985, George Boole: His Life and Work, McHale.

E.T.Bell, 1937, Men of Mathematics, London: Victor Gollancz.

KF

Biographical history of technology > Boole, George
5 Bibliography

■ Aitchison, J. (1987). Noam Chomsky: Consensus and controversy. New York: Falmer Press.

■ Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

■ Archilochus (1971). In M. L. West (Ed.), Iambi et elegi graeci (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

■ Armstrong, D. M. (1990). The causal theory of the mind. In W. G. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and cognition: A reader (pp. 37-47). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. (Originally published in 1981 in The nature of mind and other essays, Ithaca, NY: University Press).

■ Atkins, P. W. (1992). Creation revisited. Oxford: W. H. Freeman & Company.

■ Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Bacon, F. (1878). Of the proficience and advancement of learning divine and human. In The works of Francis Bacon (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Hurd & Houghton.

■ Bacon, R. (1928). Opus majus (Vol. 2). R. B. Burke (Trans.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

■ Bar-Hillel, Y. (1960). The present status of automatic translation of languages. In F. L. Alt (Ed.), Advances in computers (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

■ Barr, A., & E. A. Feigenbaum (Eds.) (1981). The handbook of artificial intelligence (Vol. 1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

■ Barr, A., & E. A. Feigenbaum (Eds.) (1982). The handbook of artificial intelligence (Vol. 2). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman.

■ Barron, F. X. (1963). The needs for order and for disorder as motives in creative activity. In C. W. Taylor & F. X. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its rec ognition and development (pp. 153-160). New York: Wiley.

■ Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Bartley, S. H. (1969). Principles of perception. London: Harper & Row.

■ Barzun, J. (1959). The house of intellect. New York: Harper & Row.

■ Beach, F. A., D. O. Hebb, C. T. Morgan & H. W. Nissen (Eds.) (1960). The neu ropsychology of Lashley. New York: McGraw-Hill.

■ Berkeley, G. (1996). Principles of human knowledge: Three Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1710.)

■ Berlin, I. (1953). The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy's view of history. NY: Simon & Schuster.

■ Bierwisch, J. (1970). Semantics. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

■ Black, H. C. (1951). Black's law dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

■ Bloom, A. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the impact of language on thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

■ Bobrow, D. G., & D. A. Norman (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Stud ies in Cognitive Science (pp. 131-149). New York: Academic Press.

■ Boden, M. A. (1977). Artificial intelligence and natural man. New York: Basic Books.

■ Boden, M. A. (1981). Minds and mechanisms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

■ Boden, M. A. (1990a). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Cardinal.

■ Boden, M. A. (1990b). The philosophy of artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

■ Boden, M. A. (1994). Precis of The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Behavioral and brain sciences 17, 519-570.

■ Boden, M. (1996). Creativity. In M. Boden (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

■ Bolter, J. D. (1984). Turing's man: Western culture in the computer age. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

■ Bolton, N. (1972). The psychology of thinking. London: Methuen.

■ Bourne, L. E. (1973). Some forms of cognition: A critical analysis of several papers. In R. Solso (Ed.), Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology (pp. 313324). Loyola Symposium on Cognitive Psychology (Chicago 1972). Washington, DC: Winston.

■ Bransford, J. D., N. S. McCarrell, J. J. Franks & K. E. Nitsch (1977). Toward unexplaining memory. In R. Shaw & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 431-466). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Breger, L. (1981). Freud's unfinished journey. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

■ Brehmer, B. (1986). In one word: Not from experience. In H. R. Arkes & K. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 705-719). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 1-59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Brislin, R. W., W. J. Lonner & R. M. Thorndike (Eds.) (1973). Cross- cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.

■ Bronowski, J. (1977). A sense of the future: Essays in natural philosophy. P. E. Ariotti with R. Bronowski (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Bronowski, J. (1978). The origins of knowledge and imagination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

■ Brown, R. O. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Brown, T. (1970). Lectures on the philosophy of the human mind. In R. Brown (Ed.), Between Hume and Mill: An anthology of British philosophy- 1749- 1843 (pp. 330-387). New York: Random House/Modern Library.

■ Bruner, J. S., J. Goodnow & G. Austin (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.

■ Calvin, W. H. (1990). The cerebral symphony: Seashore reﬂections on the structure of consciousness. New York: Bantam.

■ Campbell, J. (1982). Grammatical man: Information, entropy, language, and life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

■ Campbell, J. (1989). The improbable machine. New York: Simon & Schuster.

■ Carlyle, T. (1966). On heroes, hero- worship and the heroic in history. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Originally published in 1841.)

■ Carnap, R. (1959). The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language [Ueberwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache]. In A. J. Ayer (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 60-81) A. Pap (Trans). New York: Free Press. (Originally published in 1932.)

■ Cassirer, E. (1946). Language and myth. New York: Harper and Brothers. Reprinted. New York: Dover Publications, 1953.

■ Cattell, R. B., & H. J. Butcher (1970). Creativity and personality. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

■ Caudill, M., & C. Butler (1990). Naturally intelligent systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Chandrasekaran, B. (1990). What kind of information processing is intelligence? A perspective on AI paradigms and a proposal. In D. Partridge & R. Wilks (Eds.), The foundations of artificial intelligence: A sourcebook (pp. 14-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Charniak, E., & McDermott, D. (1985). Introduction to artificial intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

■ Chase, W. G., & H. A. Simon (1988). The mind's eye in chess. In A. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 461-493). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.

■ Cheney, D. L., & R. M. Seyfarth (1990). How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

■ Chi, M.T.H., R. Glaser & E. Rees (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Janua Linguarum.

■ Chomsky, N. (1964). A transformational approach to syntax. In J. A. Fodor & J. J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of lan guage (pp. 211-245). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

■ Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (enlarged ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

■ Chomsky, N. (1979). Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon.

■ Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger Special Studies.

■ Churchland, P. (1979). Scientific realism and the plasticity of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

■ Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Clark, A. (1996). Philosophical Foundations. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Artificial in telligence (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

■ Clark, H. H., & T. B. Carlson (1981). Context for comprehension. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 9, pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Clarke, A. C. (1984). Profiles of the future: An inquiry into the limits of the possible. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

■ Claxton, G. (1980). Cognitive psychology: A suitable case for what sort of treatment? In G. Claxton (Ed.), Cognitive psychology: New directions (pp. 1-25). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

■ Code, M. (1985). Order and organism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

■ Collingwood, R. G. (1972). The idea of history. New York: Oxford University Press.

■ Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self- esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Copland, A. (1952). Music and imagination. London: Oxford University Press.

■ Coren, S. (1994). The intelligence of dogs. New York: Bantam Books.

■ Cottingham, J. (Ed.) (1996). Western philosophy: An anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

■ Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

■ Craik, K.J.W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

■ Cronbach, L. J., & R. E. Snow (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington. Paperback edition, 1981.

■ Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self. New York: Harper Perennial.

■ Culler, J. (1976). Ferdinand de Saussure. New York: Penguin Books.

■ Curtius, E. R. (1973). European literature and the Latin Middle Ages. W. R. Trask (Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

■ D'Alembert, J.L.R. (1963). Preliminary discourse to the encyclopedia of Diderot. R. N. Schwab (Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

■ Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon.

■ Dampier, W. C. (1966). A history of modern science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Darwin, C. (1911). The life and letters of Charles Darwin (Vol. 1). Francis Darwin (Ed.). New York: Appleton.

■ Davidson, D. (1970) Mental events. In L. Foster & J. W. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and theory (pp. 79-101). Amherst: University of Massachussetts Press.

■ Davies, P. (1995). About time: Einstein's unfinished revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone.

■ Davis, R., & J. J. King (1977). An overview of production systems. In E. Elcock & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 8. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.

■ Davis, R., & D. B. Lenat (1982). Knowledge- based systems in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

■ Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection. Oxford: W. H. Freeman.

■ deKleer, J., & J. S. Brown (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models (1983). In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental modes (pp. 155-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Dennett, D. C. (1978a). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.

■ Dennett, D. C. (1978b). Toward a cognitive theory of consciousness. In D. C. Dennett, Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.

■ Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone.

■ Descartes, R. (1897-1910). Traite de l'homme. In Oeuvres de Descartes (Vol. 11, pp. 119-215). Paris: Charles Adam & Paul Tannery. (Originally published in 1634.)

■ Descartes, R. (1950). Discourse on method. L. J. Laﬂeur (Trans.). New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published in 1637.)

■ Descartes, R. (1951). Meditation on first philosophy. L. J. Laﬂeur (Trans.). New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published in 1641.)

■ Descartes, R. (1955). The philosophical works of Descartes. E. S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (Trans.). New York: Dover. (Originally published in 1911 by Cambridge University Press.)

■ Descartes, R. (1967). Discourse on method (Pt. V). In E. S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 106-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1637.)

■ Descartes, R. (1970a). Discourse on method. In E. S. Haldane & G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 181-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1637.)

■ Descartes, R. (1970b). Principles of philosophy. In E. S. Haldane & G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 178-291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1644.)

■ Descartes, R. (1984). Meditations on first philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff & D. Murduch (Trans.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1641.)

■ Descartes, R. (1986). Meditations on first philosophy. J. Cottingham (Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1641 as Med itationes de prima philosophia.)

■ deWulf, M. (1956). An introduction to scholastic philosophy. Mineola, NY: Dover Books.

■ Dixon, N. F. (1981). Preconscious processing. London: Wiley.

■ Doyle, A. C. (1986). The Boscombe Valley mystery. In Sherlock Holmes: The com plete novels and stories (Vol. 1). New York: Bantam.

■ Dreyfus, H., & S. Dreyfus (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.

■ Dreyfus, H. L. (1972). What computers can't do: The limits of artificial intelligence (revised ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

■ Dreyfus, H. L., & S. E. Dreyfus (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

■ Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.

■ Ehrenzweig, A. (1967). The hidden order of art. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

■ Einstein, A., & L. Infeld (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.

■ Eisenstein, S. (1947). Film sense. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

■ Everdell, W. R. (1997). The first moderns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

■ Eysenck, M. W. (1977). Human memory: Theory, research and individual difference. Oxford: Pergamon.

■ Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer.

■ Eysenck, M. W. (1984). A handbook of cognitive psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Fancher, R. E. (1979). Pioneers of psychology. New York: W. W. Norton.

■ Farrell, B. A. (1981). The standing of psychoanalysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

■ Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

■ Fetzer, J. H. (1996). Philosophy and cognitive science (2nd ed.). New York: Paragon House.

■ Finke, R. A. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Flanagan, O. (1991). The science of the mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Frege, G. (1972). Conceptual notation. T. W. Bynum (Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Originally published in 1879.)

■ Frege, G. (1979). Logic. In H. Hermes, F. Kambartel & F. Kaulbach (Eds.), Gottlob Frege: Posthumous writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1879-1891.)

■ Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and day-dreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 143-153). London: Hogarth Press.

■ Freud, S. (1966). Project for a scientific psychology. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The stan dard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 1, pp. 295-398). London: Hogarth Press. (Originally published in 1950 as Aus den AnfaЁngen der Psychoanalyse, in London by Imago Publishing.)

■ Freud, S. (1976). Lecture 18-Fixation to traumas-the unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 16, p. 285). London: Hogarth Press.

■ Galileo, G. (1990). Il saggiatore [The assayer]. In S. Drake (Ed.), Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. New York: Anchor Books. (Originally published in 1623.)

■ Gassendi, P. (1970). Letter to Descartes. In "Objections and replies." In E. S. Haldane & G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 179-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1641.)

■ Gazzaniga, M. S. (1988). Mind matters: How mind and brain interact to create our conscious lives. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin in association with MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Genesereth, M. R., & N. J. Nilsson (1987). Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

■ Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. New York: Mentor.

■ Ghiselin, B. (1985). The creative process. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1952.)

■ Gilhooly, K. J. (1996). Thinking: Directed, undirected and creative (3rd ed.). London: Academic Press.

■ Glass, A. L., K. J. Holyoak & J. L. Santa (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

■ Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Gruber, H. E. (1980). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

■ Gruber, H. E., & S. Davis (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving systems approach to creative thinking. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Guthrie, E. R. (1972). The psychology of learning. New York: Harper. (Originally published in 1935.)

■ Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

■ Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

■ Hand, D. J. (1985). Artificial intelligence and psychiatry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Harris, M. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.

■ Haugeland, J. (Ed.) (1981). Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Haugeland, J. (1981a). The nature and plausibility of cognitivism. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (pp. 243-281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Haugeland, J. (1981b). Semantic engines: An introduction to mind design. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (pp. 1-34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Haugeland, J. (1985). Artificial intelligence: The very idea. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

■ Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organisation of behaviour. New York: Wiley.

■ Hebb, D. O. (1958). A textbook of psychology. Philadelphia: Saunders.

■ Hegel, G.W.F. (1910). The phenomenology of mind. J. B. Baille (Trans.). London: Sonnenschein. (Originally published as Phaenomenologie des Geistes, 1807.)

■ Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.

■ Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

■ Herman, A. (1997). The idea of decline in Western history. New York: Free Press.

■ Herrnstein, R. J., & E. G. Boring (Eds.) (1965). A source book in the history of psy chology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Herzmann, E. (1964). Mozart's creative process. In P. H. Lang (Ed.), The creative world of Mozart (pp. 17-30). London: Oldbourne Press.

■ Hilgard, E. R. (1957). Introduction to psychology. London: Methuen.

■ Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Crooke.

■ Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Goedel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.

■ Holliday, S. G., & M. J. Chandler (1986). Wisdom: Explorations in adult competence. Basel, Switzerland: Karger.

■ Horn, J. L. (1986). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

■ Hull, C. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

■ Hume, D. (1955). An inquiry concerning human understanding. New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published in 1748.)

■ Hume, D. (1975). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In L. A. SelbyBigge (Ed.), Hume's enquiries (3rd. ed., revised P. H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon. (Spelling and punctuation revised.) (Originally published in 1748.)

■ Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature. L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Hume's enquiries (3rd. ed., revised P. H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon. (With some modifications of spelling and punctuation.) (Originally published in 1690.)

■ Hunt, E. (1973). The memory we must have. In R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language. (pp. 343-371) San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Husserl, E. (1960). Cartesian meditations. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

■ Inhelder, B., & J. Piaget (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1955 as De la logique de l'enfant a` la logique de l'adolescent. [Paris: Presses Universitaire de France])

■ James, W. (1890a). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover Books.

■ James, W. (1890b). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

■ Jevons, W. S. (1900). The principles of science (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.

■ Johnson, G. (1986). Machinery of the mind: Inside the new science of artificial intelli gence. New York: Random House.

■ Johnson, M. L. (1988). Mind, language, machine. New York: St. Martin's Press.

■ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). The computer and the mind: An introduction to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Jones, E. (1961). The life and work of Sigmund Freud. L. Trilling & S. Marcus (Eds.). London: Hogarth.

■ Jones, R. V. (1985). Complementarity as a way of life. In A. P. French & P. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Niels Bohr: A centenary volume. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Kant, I. (1933). Critique of Pure Reason (2nd ed.). N. K. Smith (Trans.). London: Macmillan. (Originally published in 1781 as Kritik der reinen Vernunft.)

■ Kant, I. (1891). Solution of the general problems of the Prolegomena. In E. Belfort (Trans.), Kant's Prolegomena. London: Bell. (With minor modifications.) (Originally published in 1783.)

■ Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing: Studies in the psychology of learning and teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.

■ Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley.

■ Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Arkana (Penguin).

■ Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology. (pp. 151-235) New York: Academic Press.

■ KoЁhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Liveright.

■ KoЁhler, W. (1927). The mentality of apes (2nd ed.). Ella Winter (Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

■ KoЁhler, W. (1930). Gestalt psychology. London: G. Bell.

■ KoЁhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.

■ KoЁhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

■ Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

■ Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

■ Langer, S. (1962). Philosophical sketches. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

■ Langley, P., H. A. Simon, G. L. Bradshaw & J. M. Zytkow (1987). Scientific dis covery: Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior, the Hixon Symposium (pp. 112-146) New York: Wiley.

■ LeDoux, J. E., & W. Hirst (1986). Mind and brain: Dialogues in cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Lehnert, W. (1978). The process of question answering. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Leiber, J. (1991). Invitation to cognitive science. Oxford: Blackwell.

■ Lenat, D. B., & G. Harris (1978). Designing a rule system that searches for scientific discoveries. In D. A. Waterman & F. Hayes-Roth (Eds.), Pattern directed inference systems (pp. 25-52) New York: Academic Press.

■ Levenson, T. (1995). Measure for measure: A musical history of science. New York: Touchstone. (Originally published in 1994.)

■ Leґvi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. C. Jacobson & B. Grundfest Schoepf (Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1958.)

■ Levine, M. W., & J. M. Schefner (1981). Fundamentals of sensation and perception. London: Addison-Wesley.

■ Lewis, C. I. (1946). An analysis of knowledge and valuation. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

■ Lighthill, J. (1972). A report on artificial intelligence. Unpublished manuscript, Science Research Council.

■ Lipman, M., A. M. Sharp & F. S. Oscanyan (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

■ Lippmann, W. (1965). Public opinion. New York: Free Press. (Originally published in 1922.)

■ Locke, J. (1956). An essay concerning human understanding. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. (Originally published in 1690.)

■ Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. P. H. Nidditch (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. (Originally published in 1690.) (With spelling and punctuation modernized and some minor modifications of phrasing.)

■ Lopate, P. (1994). The art of the personal essay. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books.

■ Lorimer, F. (1929). The growth of reason. London: Kegan Paul. Machlup, F., & U. Mansfield (Eds.) (1983). The study of information. New York: Wiley.

■ Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking.

■ Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

■ Markey, J. F. (1928). The symbolic process. London: Kegan Paul.

■ Martin, R. M. (1969). On Ziff's "Natural and formal languages." In S. Hook (Ed.), Language and philosophy: A symposium (pp. 249-263). New York: New York University Press.

■ Mazlish, B. (1993). The fourth discontinuity: the co- evolution of humans and machines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

■ McCarthy, J., & P. J. Hayes (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 4. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

■ McClelland, J. L., D. E. Rumelhart & G. E. Hinton (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the mi crostructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 3-40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.

■ McCorduck, P. (1979). Machines who think. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ McLaughlin, T. (1970). Music and communication. London: Faber & Faber.

■ Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69, 431-436.

■ Meehl, P. E., & C. J. Golden (1982). Taxometric methods. In Kendall, P. C., & Butcher, J. N. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 127-182). New York: Wiley.

■ Mehler, J., E.C.T. Walker & M. Garrett (Eds.) (1982). Perspectives on mental rep resentation: Experimental and theoretical studies of cognitive processes and ca pacities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Mill, J. S. (1900). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Longmans, Green.

■ Miller, G. A. (1979, June). A very personal history. Talk to the Cognitive Science Workshop, Cambridge, MA.

■ Miller, J. (1983). States of mind. New York: Pantheon Books.

■ Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGrawHill.

■ Minsky, M., & S. Papert (1973). Artificial intelligence. Condon Lectures, Oregon State System of Higher Education, Eugene, Oregon.

■ Minsky, M. L. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

■ Mischel, T. (1976). Psychological explanations and their vicissitudes. In J. K. Cole & W. J. Arnold (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation (Vol. 23). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

■ Morford, M.P.O., & R. J. Lenardon (1995). Classical mythology (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

■ Murdoch, I. (1954). Under the net. New York: Penguin.

■ Nagel, E. (1959). Methodological issues in psychoanalytic theory. In S. Hook (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, scientific method, and philosophy: A symposium. New York: New York University Press.

■ Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. London: Cambridge University Press.

■ Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

■ Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

■ Neisser, U. (1972). Changing conceptions of imagery. In P. W. Sheehan (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery (pp. 233-251). London: Academic Press.

■ Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3-24). London: Academic Press.

■ Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), Human intelligence: Perspectives on its theory and measurement (pp. 179-190). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

■ Nersessian, N. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

■ Newell, A. (1973a). Artificial intelligence and the concept of mind. In R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language (pp. 1-60). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Newell, A. (1973b). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-310). New York: Academic Press.

■ Newell, A., & H. A. Simon (1963). GPS: A program that simulates human thought. In E. A. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.), Computers and thought (pp. 279-293). New York & McGraw-Hill.

■ Newell, A., & H. A. Simon (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

■ Nietzsche, F. (1966). Beyond good and evil. W. Kaufmann (Trans.). New York: Vintage. (Originally published in 1885.)

■ Nilsson, N. J. (1971). Problem- solving methods in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

■ Nussbaum, M. C. (1978). Aristotle's Princeton University Press. De Motu Anamalium. Princeton, NJ:

■ Oersted, H. C. (1920). Thermo-electricity. In Kirstine Meyer (Ed.), H. C. Oersted, Natuurvidenskabelige Skrifter (Vol. 2). Copenhagen: n.p. (Originally published in 1830 in The Edinburgh encyclopaedia.)

■ Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

■ Onians, R. B. (1954). The origins of European thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

■ Osgood, C. E. (1960). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1953.)

■ Osgood, C. E. (1966). Language universals and psycholinguistics. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (2nd ed., pp. 299-322). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

■ Peirce, C. S. (1934). Some consequences of four incapacities-Man, a sign. In C. Hartsborne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Saunders Peirce (Vol. 5, pp. 185-189). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Penfield, W. (1959). In W. Penfield & L. Roberts, Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

■ Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of conscious ness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

■ Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind's best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Peterfreund, E. (1986). The heuristic approach to psychoanalytic therapy. In

■ J. Reppen (Ed.), Analysts at work, (pp. 127-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

■ Piaget, J. (1952). The origin of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. (Originally published in 1936.)

■ Piaget, J. (1954). Le langage et les opeґrations intellectuelles. Proble` mes de psycho linguistique. Symposium de l'Association de Psychologie Scientifique de Langue Francёaise. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

■ Piaget, J. (1977). Problems of equilibration. In H. E. Gruber & J. J. Voneche (Eds.), The essential Piaget (pp. 838-841). London: Routlege & Kegan Paul. (Originally published in 1975 as L'eґquilibration des structures cognitives [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France].)

■ Piaget, J., & B. Inhelder. (1973). Memory and intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

■ Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.

■ Pinker, S. (1996). Facts about human language relevant to its evolution. In J.-P. Changeux & J. Chavaillon (Eds.), Origins of the human brain. A symposium of the Fyssen foundation (pp. 262-283). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers. F. Gaynor (Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.

■ Planck, M. (1990). Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. W. Berg (Ed.). Halle, Germany: Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina.

■ Plato (1892). Meno. In The Dialogues of Plato (B. Jowett, Trans.; Vol. 2). New York: Clarendon. (Originally published circa 380 B.C.)

■ Poincareґ, H. (1913). Mathematical creation. In The foundations of science. G. B. Halsted (Trans.). New York: Science Press.

■ Poincareґ, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method. G. B. Halstead (Trans.). New York: Science Press.

■ Poincareґ, H. (1929). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method. New York: Science Press.

■ Poincareґ, H. (1952). Science and method. F. Maitland (Trans.) New York: Dover.

■ Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

■ Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

■ Popper, K. (1968). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row/Basic Books.

■ Popper, K., & J. Eccles (1977). The self and its brain. New York: Springer-Verlag.

■ Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

■ Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language and reality: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Putnam, H. (1987). The faces of realism. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

■ Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analog media versus tacit knowledge. In N. Block (Ed.), Imagery (pp. 151-206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition: Towards a foundation for cog nitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 216-260). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Rabbitt, P.M.A., & S. Dornic (Eds.). Attention and performance (Vol. 5). London: Academic Press.

■ Rawlins, G.J.E. (1997). Slaves of the Machine: The quickening of computer technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

■ Reid, T. (1970). An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense. In R. Brown (Ed.), Between Hume and Mill: An anthology of British philosophy- 1749- 1843 (pp. 151-178). New York: Random House/Modern Library.

■ Reitman, W. (1970). What does it take to remember? In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory (pp. 470-510). London: Academic Press.

■ Ricoeur, P. (1974). Structure and hermeneutics. In D. I. Ihde (Ed.), The conﬂict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics (pp. 27-61). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

■ Robinson, D. N. (1986). An intellectual history of psychology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

■ Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

■ Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1-49) London: Academic Press.

■ Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Rosch, E., & B. B. Lloyd (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Rose, S. (1970). The chemistry of life. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

■ Rose, S. (1976). The conscious brain (updated ed.). New York: Random House.

■ Rose, S. (1993). The making of memory: From molecules to mind. New York: Anchor Books. (Originally published in 1992)

■ Roszak, T. (1994). The cult of information: A neo- Luddite treatise on high- tech, artificial intelligence, and the true art of thinking (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

■ Royce, J. R., & W. W. Rozeboom (Eds.) (1972). The psychology of knowing. New York: Gordon & Breach.

■ Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Introduction to human information processing. New York: Wiley.

■ Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Rumelhart, D. E., & J. L. McClelland (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Rumelhart, D. E., P. Smolensky, J. L. McClelland & G. E. Hinton (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (Vol. 2, pp. 7-57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Russell, B. (1927). An outline of philosophy. London: G. Allen & Unwin.

■ Russell, B. (1961). History of Western philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.

■ Russell, B. (1965). How I write. In Portraits from memory and other essays. London: Allen & Unwin.

■ Russell, B. (1992). In N. Griffin (Ed.), The selected letters of Bertrand Russell (Vol. 1), The private years, 1884- 1914. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin. Ryecroft, C. (1966). Psychoanalysis observed. London: Constable.

■ Sagan, C. (1978). The dragons of Eden: Speculations on the evolution of human intel ligence. New York: Ballantine Books.

■ Salthouse, T. A. (1992). Expertise as the circumvention of human processing limitations. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Sanford, A. J. (1987). The mind of man: Models of human understanding. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

■ Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

■ Sapir, E. (1964). Culture, language, and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1941.)

■ Sapir, E. (1985). The status of linguistics as a science. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality (pp. 160166). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1929).

■ Scardmalia, M., & C. Bereiter (1992). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Schafer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing. New York: Grune & Stratten.

■ Schank, R. C. (1973). Identification of conceptualizations underlying natural language. In R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language (pp. 187-248). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Schank, R. C. (1976). The role of memory in language processing. In C. N. Cofer (Ed.), The structure of human memory. (pp. 162-189) San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Schank, R. C., & R. P. Abelson (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ SchroЁdinger, E. (1951). Science and humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Searle, J. R. (1981a). Minds, brains, and programs. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (pp. 282-306). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Searle, J. R. (1981b). Minds, brains and programs. In D. Hofstadter & D. Dennett (Eds.), The mind's I (pp. 353-373). New York: Basic Books.

■ Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

■ Serres, M. (1982). The origin of language: Biology, information theory, and thermodynamics. M. Anderson (Trans.). In J. V. Harari & D. F. Bell (Eds.), Hermes: Literature, science, philosophy (pp. 71-83). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

■ Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), Mind and cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy (pp. 22-40). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

■ Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

■ Simon, H. A. (1989). The scientist as a problem solver. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert Simon. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Simon, H. A., & C. Kaplan (1989). Foundations of cognitive science. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 1-47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.

■ Smith, E. E. (1988). Concepts and thought. In J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 19-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Smith, E. E. (1990). Thinking: Introduction. In D. N. Osherson & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Thinking. An invitation to cognitive science. (Vol. 3, pp. 1-2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Socrates. (1958). Meno. In E. H. Warmington & P. O. Rouse (Eds.), Great dialogues of Plato W.H.D. Rouse (Trans.). New York: New American Library. (Original publication date unknown.)

■ Solso, R. L. (1974). Theories of retrieval. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Spencer, H. (1896). The principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.

■ Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

■ Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

■ Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, Thinking and problem solving. San Diego: Academic Press.

■ Sternberg, R. J., & J. E. Davidson (1985). Cognitive development in gifted and talented. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented (pp. 103-135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

■ Storr, A. (1993). The dynamics of creation. New York: Ballantine Books. (Originally published in 1972.)

■ Stumpf, S. E. (1994). Philosophy: History and problems (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

■ Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Random House/Vintage Books.

■ Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Principles of teaching. New York: A. G. Seiler.

■ Thorndike, E. L. (1970). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. Darien, CT: Hafner Publishing Co. (Originally published in 1911.)

■ Titchener, E. B. (1910). A textbook of psychology. New York: Macmillan.

■ Titchener, E. B. (1914). A primer of psychology. New York: Macmillan.

■ Toulmin, S. (1957). The philosophy of science. London: Hutchinson.

■ Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organisation of memory. London: Academic Press.

■ Turing, A. (1946). In B. E. Carpenter & R. W. Doran (Eds.), ACE reports of 1946 and other papers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Turkle, S. (1984). Computers and the second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.

■ Tyler, S. A. (1978). The said and the unsaid: Mind, meaning, and culture. New York: Academic Press.

■ van Heijenoort (Ed.) (1967). From Frege to Goedel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

■ Varela, F. J. (1984). The creative circle: Sketches on the natural history of circularity. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 309-324). New York: W. W. Norton.

■ Voltaire (1961). On the Penseґs of M. Pascal. In Philosophical letters (pp. 119-146). E. Dilworth (Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

■ Wagman, M. (1991a). Artificial intelligence and human cognition: A theoretical inter comparison of two realms of intellect. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1991b). Cognitive science and concepts of mind: Toward a general theory of human and artificial intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1993). Cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence: Theory and re search in cognitive science. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1995). The sciences of cognition: Theory and research in psychology and artificial intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1996). Human intellect and cognitive science: Toward a general unified theory of intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1997a). Cognitive science and the symbolic operations of human and artificial intelligence: Theory and research into the intellective processes. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1997b). The general unified theory of intelligence: Central conceptions and specific application to domains of cognitive science. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1998a). Cognitive science and the mind- body problem: From philosophy to psychology to artificial intelligence to imaging of the brain. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1998b). Language and thought in humans and computers: Theory and research in psychology, artificial intelligence, and neural science. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1998c). The ultimate objectives of artificial intelligence: Theoretical and research foundations, philosophical and psychological implications. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (1999). The human mind according to artificial intelligence: Theory, re search, and implications. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wagman, M. (2000). Scientific discovery processes in humans and computers: Theory and research in psychology and artificial intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

■ Wall, R. (1972). Introduction to mathematical linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

■ Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.

■ Wason, P. (1977). Self contradictions. In P. Johnson-Laird & P. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

■ Wason, P. C., & P. N. Johnson-Laird. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

■ Watson, J. (1930). Behaviorism. New York: W. W. Norton.

■ Watzlawick, P. (1984). Epilogue. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.

■ Weinberg, S. (1977). The first three minutes: A modern view of the origin of the uni verse. New York: Basic Books.

■ Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: W. H. Freeman.

■ Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to cal culation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

■ Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Bros.

■ Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.

■ Whorf, B. L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Whyte, L. L. (1962). The unconscious before Freud. New York: Anchor Books.

■ Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin.

■ Wiener, N. (1964). God & Golem, Inc.: A comment on certain points where cybernetics impinges on religion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. New York: Academic Press.

■ Winston, P. H. (1987). Artificial intelligence: A perspective. In E. L. Grimson & R. S. Patil (Eds.), AI in the 1980s and beyond (pp. 1-12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

■ Winston, P. H. (Ed.) (1975). The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGrawHill.

■ Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

■ Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. New York: Harper Colophon.

■ Woods, W. A. (1975). What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representations and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 35-84). New York: Academic Press.

■ Woodworth, R. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt; London: Methuen (1939).

■ Wundt, W. (1904). Principles of physiological psychology (Vol. 1). E. B. Titchener (Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

■ Wundt, W. (1907). Lectures on human and animal psychology. J. E. Creighton & E. B. Titchener (Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

■ Young, J. Z. (1978). Programs of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.

■ Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Historical dictionary of quotations in cognitive science > Bibliography
6 Artificial Intelligence

   1) Programs and the Complexity of Human Mental Processes

   In my opinion, none of [these programs] does even remote justice to the complexity of human mental processes. Unlike men, "artificially intelligent" programs tend to be single minded, undistractable, and unemotional. (Neisser, 1967, p. 9)

   2) Artificial Intelligence Is an Engineering Discipline

   Future progress in [artificial intelligence] will depend on the development of both practical and theoretical knowledge.... As regards theoretical knowledge, some have sought a unified theory of artificial intelligence. My view is that artificial intelligence is (or soon will be) an engineering discipline since its primary goal is to build things. (Nilsson, 1971, pp. vii-viii)

   3) A Sceptical View of Artificial Intelligence

   Most workers in AI [artificial intelligence] research and in related fields confess to a pronounced feeling of disappointment in what has been achieved in the last 25 years. Workers entered the field around 1950, and even around 1960, with high hopes that are very far from being realized in 1972. In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised.... In the meantime, claims and predictions regarding the potential results of AI research had been publicized which went even farther than the expectations of the majority of workers in the field, whose embarrassments have been added to by the lamentable failure of such inﬂated predictions....

   When able and respected scientists write in letters to the present author that AI, the major goal of computing science, represents "another step in the general process of evolution"; that possibilities in the 1980s include an all-purpose intelligence on a human-scale knowledge base; that awe-inspiring possibilities suggest themselves based on machine intelligence exceeding human intelligence by the year 2000 [one has the right to be skeptical]. (Lighthill, 1972, p. 17)

   4) Just as Astronomy Succeeded Astrology, the Discovery of Intellectual Processes in Machines Should Lead to a Science, Eventually

   Just as astronomy succeeded astrology, following Kepler's discovery of planetary regularities, the discoveries of these many principles in empirical explorations on intellectual processes in machines should lead to a science, eventually. (Minsky & Papert, 1973, p. 11)

   5) Problems in Machine Intelligence Arise Because Things Obvious to Any Person Are Not Represented in the Program

   Many problems arise in experiments on machine intelligence because things obvious to any person are not represented in any program. One can pull with a string, but one cannot push with one.... Simple facts like these caused serious problems when Charniak attempted to extend Bobrow's "Student" program to more realistic applications, and they have not been faced up to until now. (Minsky & Papert, 1973, p. 77)

   6) The Meaning of a Symbolic Description

   What do we mean by [a symbolic] "description"? We do not mean to suggest that our descriptions must be made of strings of ordinary language words (although they might be). The simplest kind of description is a structure in which some features of a situation are represented by single ("primitive") symbols, and relations between those features are represented by other symbols-or by other features of the way the description is put together. (Minsky & Papert, 1973, p. 11)

   7) The Principle of Artificial Intelligence

   [AI is] the use of computer programs and programming techniques to cast light on the principles of intelligence in general and human thought in particular. (Boden, 1977, p. 5)

   8) Artificial Intelligence Recognizes the Need for Knowledge in Its Systems

   The word you look for and hardly ever see in the early AI literature is the word knowledge. They didn't believe you have to know anything, you could always rework it all.... In fact 1967 is the turning point in my mind when there was enough feeling that the old ideas of general principles had to go.... I came up with an argument for what I called the primacy of expertise, and at the time I called the other guys the generalists. (Moses, quoted in McCorduck, 1979, pp. 228-229)

   9) Artificial Intelligence Is Psychology in a Particularly Pure and Abstract Form

   The basic idea of cognitive science is that intelligent beings are semantic engines-in other words, automatic formal systems with interpretations under which they consistently make sense. We can now see why this includes psychology and artificial intelligence on a more or less equal footing: people and intelligent computers (if and when there are any) turn out to be merely different manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon. Moreover, with universal hardware, any semantic engine can in principle be formally imitated by a computer if only the right program can be found. And that will guarantee semantic imitation as well, since (given the appropriate formal behavior) the semantics is "taking care of itself" anyway. Thus we also see why, from this perspective, artificial intelligence can be regarded as psychology in a particularly pure and abstract form. The same fundamental structures are under investigation, but in AI, all the relevant parameters are under direct experimental control (in the programming), without any messy physiology or ethics to get in the way. (Haugeland, 1981b, p. 31)

    10) There Are Many Types of Reasoning

   There are many different kinds of reasoning one might imagine:

    Formal reasoning involves the syntactic manipulation of data structures to deduce new ones following prespecified rules of inference. Mathematical logic is the archetypical formal representation. Procedural reasoning uses simulation to answer questions and solve problems. When we use a program to answer What is the sum of 3 and 4? it uses, or "runs," a procedural model of arithmetic. Reasoning by analogy seems to be a very natural mode of thought for humans but, so far, difficult to accomplish in AI programs. The idea is that when you ask the question Can robins ﬂy? the system might reason that "robins are like sparrows, and I know that sparrows can ﬂy, so robins probably can ﬂy."

    Generalization and abstraction are also natural reasoning process for humans that are difficult to pin down well enough to implement in a program. If one knows that Robins have wings, that Sparrows have wings, and that Blue jays have wings, eventually one will believe that All birds have wings. This capability may be at the core of most human learning, but it has not yet become a useful technique in AI.... Meta- level reasoning is demonstrated by the way one answers the question What is Paul Newman's telephone number? You might reason that "if I knew Paul Newman's number, I would know that I knew it, because it is a notable fact." This involves using "knowledge about what you know," in particular, about the extent of your knowledge and about the importance of certain facts. Recent research in psychology and AI indicates that meta-level reasoning may play a central role in human cognitive processing. (Barr & Feigenbaum, 1981, pp. 146-147)

    11) Programs Are Beginning to Do Things That Critics Have Asserted to Be Impossible

   Suffice it to say that programs already exist that can do things-or, at the very least, appear to be beginning to do things-which ill-informed critics have asserted a priori to be impossible. Examples include: perceiving in a holistic as opposed to an atomistic way; using language creatively; translating sensibly from one language to another by way of a language-neutral semantic representation; planning acts in a broad and sketchy fashion, the details being decided only in execution; distinguishing between different species of emotional reaction according to the psychological context of the subject. (Boden, 1981, p. 33)

    12) The Synthesis of Man and Machine

   Can the synthesis of Man and Machine ever be stable, or will the purely organic component become such a hindrance that it has to be discarded? If this eventually happens-and I have... good reasons for thinking that it must-we have nothing to regret and certainly nothing to fear. (Clarke, 1984, p. 243)

    13) The Thesis of Good Old-Fashioned Artificial Intelligence (GOFAI)

   The thesis of GOFAI... is not that the processes underlying intelligence can be described symbolically... but that they are symbolic. (Haugeland, 1985, p. 113)

    14) Artificial Intelligence Provides a Useful Approach to Psychological and Psychiatric Theory Formation

   It is all very well formulating psychological and psychiatric theories verbally but, when using natural language (even technical jargon), it is difficult to recognise when a theory is complete; oversights are all too easily made, gaps too readily left. This is a point which is generally recognised to be true and it is for precisely this reason that the behavioural sciences attempt to follow the natural sciences in using "classical" mathematics as a more rigorous descriptive language. However, it is an unfortunate fact that, with a few notable exceptions, there has been a marked lack of success in this application. It is my belief that a different approach-a different mathematics-is needed, and that AI provides just this approach. (Hand, quoted in Hand, 1985, pp. 6-7)

    15) Four Kinds of Artificial Intelligence

   We might distinguish among four kinds of AI.

   ♦ Nonpsychological AI

   Research of this kind involves building and programming computers to perform tasks which, to paraphrase Marvin Minsky, would require intelligence if they were done by us. Researchers in nonpsychological AI make no claims whatsoever about the psychological realism of their programs or the devices they build, that is, about whether or not computers perform tasks as humans do.

   ♦ Weak Psychological AI

   Research here is guided by the view that the computer is a useful tool in the study of mind. In particular, we can write computer programs or build devices that simulate alleged psychological processes in humans and then test our predictions about how the alleged processes work. We can weave these programs and devices together with other programs and devices that simulate different alleged mental processes and thereby test the degree to which the AI system as a whole simulates human mentality. According to weak psychological AI, working with computer models is a way of refining and testing hypotheses about processes that are allegedly realized in human minds.

   ♦ Strong Psychological AI

... According to this view, our minds are computers and therefore can be duplicated by other computers. Sherry Turkle writes that the "real ambition is of mythic proportions, making a general purpose intelligence, a mind." (Turkle, 1984, p. 240) The authors of a major text announce that "the ultimate goal of AI research is to build a person or, more humbly, an animal." (Charniak & McDermott, 1985, p. 7)

   ♦ Suprapsychological AI

   Research in this field, like strong psychological AI, takes seriously the functionalist view that mentality can be realized in many different types of physical devices. Suprapsychological AI, however, accuses strong psychological AI of being chauvinisticof being only interested in human intelligence! Suprapsychological AI claims to be interested in all the conceivable ways intelligence can be realized. (Flanagan, 1991, pp. 241-242)

    16) Determination of Relevance of Rules in Particular Contexts

   Even if the [rules] were stored in a context-free form the computer still couldn't use them. To do that the computer requires rules enabling it to draw on just those [ rules] which are relevant in each particular context. Determination of relevance will have to be based on further facts and rules, but the question will again arise as to which facts and rules are relevant for making each particular determination. One could always invoke further facts and rules to answer this question, but of course these must be only the relevant ones. And so it goes. It seems that AI workers will never be able to get started here unless they can settle the problem of relevance beforehand by cataloguing types of context and listing just those facts which are relevant in each. (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986, p. 80)

    17) Form and Content Are Not Fundamentally Different

   Perhaps the single most important idea to artificial intelligence is that there is no fundamental difference between form and content, that meaning can be captured in a set of symbols such as a semantic net. (G. Johnson, 1986, p. 250)

    18) The Assumption That the Mind Is a Formal System

   Artificial intelligence is based on the assumption that the mind can be described as some kind of formal system manipulating symbols that stand for things in the world. Thus it doesn't matter what the brain is made of, or what it uses for tokens in the great game of thinking. Using an equivalent set of tokens and rules, we can do thinking with a digital computer, just as we can play chess using cups, salt and pepper shakers, knives, forks, and spoons. Using the right software, one system (the mind) can be mapped into the other (the computer). (G. Johnson, 1986, p. 250)

    19) A Statement of the Primary and Secondary Purposes of Artificial Intelligence

   The primary goal of Artificial Intelligence is to make machines smarter.

   The secondary goals of Artificial Intelligence are to understand what intelligence is (the Nobel laureate purpose) and to make machines more useful (the entrepreneurial purpose). (Winston, 1987, p. 1)

    20) Mathematical Logic Provides the Basis for Theory in AI

   The theoretical ideas of older branches of engineering are captured in the language of mathematics. We contend that mathematical logic provides the basis for theory in AI. Although many computer scientists already count logic as fundamental to computer science in general, we put forward an even stronger form of the logic-is-important argument....

   AI deals mainly with the problem of representing and using declarative (as opposed to procedural) knowledge. Declarative knowledge is the kind that is expressed as sentences, and AI needs a language in which to state these sentences. Because the languages in which this knowledge usually is originally captured (natural languages such as English) are not suitable for computer representations, some other language with the appropriate properties must be used. It turns out, we think, that the appropriate properties include at least those that have been uppermost in the minds of logicians in their development of logical languages such as the predicate calculus. Thus, we think that any language for expressing knowledge in AI systems must be at least as expressive as the first-order predicate calculus. (Genesereth & Nilsson, 1987, p. viii)

    21) Perceptual Structures Can Be Represented as Lists of Elementary Propositions

   In artificial intelligence studies, perceptual structures are represented as assemblages of description lists, the elementary components of which are propositions asserting that certain relations hold among elements. (Chase & Simon, 1988, p. 490)

    22) Definitions of Artificial Intelligence

   Artificial intelligence (AI) is sometimes defined as the study of how to build and/or program computers to enable them to do the sorts of things that minds can do. Some of these things are commonly regarded as requiring intelligence: offering a medical diagnosis and/or prescription, giving legal or scientific advice, proving theorems in logic or mathematics. Others are not, because they can be done by all normal adults irrespective of educational background (and sometimes by non-human animals too), and typically involve no conscious control: seeing things in sunlight and shadows, finding a path through cluttered terrain, fitting pegs into holes, speaking one's own native tongue, and using one's common sense. Because it covers AI research dealing with both these classes of mental capacity, this definition is preferable to one describing AI as making computers do "things that would require intelligence if done by people." However, it presupposes that computers could do what minds can do, that they might really diagnose, advise, infer, and understand. One could avoid this problematic assumption (and also side-step questions about whether computers do things in the same way as we do) by defining AI instead as "the development of computers whose observable performance has features which in humans we would attribute to mental processes." This bland characterization would be acceptable to some AI workers, especially amongst those focusing on the production of technological tools for commercial purposes. But many others would favour a more controversial definition, seeing AI as the science of intelligence in general-or, more accurately, as the intellectual core of cognitive science. As such, its goal is to provide a systematic theory that can explain (and perhaps enable us to replicate) both the general categories of intentionality and the diverse psychological capacities grounded in them. (Boden, 1990b, pp. 1-2)

    23) The Computer Can Not Be a Model of the Mind

   Because the ability to store data somewhat corresponds to what we call memory in human beings, and because the ability to follow logical procedures somewhat corresponds to what we call reasoning in human beings, many members of the cult have concluded that what computers do somewhat corresponds to what we call thinking. It is no great difficulty to persuade the general public of that conclusion since computers process data very fast in small spaces well below the level of visibility; they do not look like other machines when they are at work. They seem to be running along as smoothly and silently as the brain does when it remembers and reasons and thinks. On the other hand, those who design and build computers know exactly how the machines are working down in the hidden depths of their semiconductors. Computers can be taken apart, scrutinized, and put back together. Their activities can be tracked, analyzed, measured, and thus clearly understood-which is far from possible with the brain. This gives rise to the tempting assumption on the part of the builders and designers that computers can tell us something about brains, indeed, that the computer can serve as a model of the mind, which then comes to be seen as some manner of information processing machine, and possibly not as good at the job as the machine. (Roszak, 1994, pp. xiv-xv)

    24) Computers Will Not Always Be Inferior to Human Brains

   The inner workings of the human mind are far more intricate than the most complicated systems of modern technology. Researchers in the field of artificial intelligence have been attempting to develop programs that will enable computers to display intelligent behavior. Although this field has been an active one for more than thirty-five years and has had many notable successes, AI researchers still do not know how to create a program that matches human intelligence. No existing program can recall facts, solve problems, reason, learn, and process language with human facility. This lack of success has occurred not because computers are inferior to human brains but rather because we do not yet know in sufficient detail how intelligence is organized in the brain. (Anderson, 1995, p. 2)

Historical dictionary of quotations in cognitive science > Artificial Intelligence
7 Philosophy

   1) There Are Ideas That Have Their Own True and Immutable Nature

   And what I believe to be more important here is that I find in myself an infinity of ideas of certain things which cannot be assumed to be pure nothingness, even though they may have perhaps no existence outside of my thought. These things are not figments of my imagination, even though it is within my power to think of them or not to think of them; on the contrary, they have their own true and immutable natures. Thus, for example, when I imagine a triangle, even though there may perhaps be no such figure anywhere in the world outside of my thought, nor ever have been, nevertheless the figure cannot help having a certain determinate nature... or essence, which is immutable and eternal, which I have not invented and which does not in any way depend upon my mind. (Descartes, 1951, p. 61)

   2) Examine What Is within Our Reach

   Let us console ourselves for not knowing the possible connections between a spider and the rings of Saturn, and continue to examine what is within our reach. (Voltaire, 1961, p. 144)

   3) Modern Philosophy Starts with the Cartesian Catastrophe

   As modern physics started with the Newtonian revolution, so modern philosophy starts with what one might call the Cartesian Catastrophe. The catastrophe consisted in the splitting up of the world into the realms of matter and mind, and the identification of "mind" with conscious thinking. The result of this identification was the shallow rationalism of l'esprit Cartesien, and an impoverishment of psychology which it took three centuries to remedy even in part. (Koestler, 1964, p. 148)

   4) The Rightful Claims of Philosophy

   It has been made of late a reproach against natural philosophy that it has struck out on a path of its own, and has separated itself more and more widely from the other sciences which are united by common philological and historical studies. The opposition has, in fact, been long apparent, and seems to me to have grown up mainly under the inﬂuence of the Hegelian philosophy, or, at any rate, to have been brought out into more distinct relief by that philosophy.... The sole object of Kant's "Critical Philosophy" was to test the sources and the authority of our knowledge, and to fix a definite scope and standard for the researches of philosophy, as compared with other sciences.... [But Hegel's] "Philosophy of Identity" was bolder. It started with the hypothesis that not only spiritual phenomena, but even the actual world-nature, that is, and man-were the result of an act of thought on the part of a creative mind, similar, it was supposed, in kind to the human mind.... The philosophers accused the scientific men of narrowness; the scientific men retorted that the philosophers were crazy. And so it came about that men of science began to lay some stress on the banishment of all philosophic inﬂuences from their work; while some of them, including men of the greatest acuteness, went so far as to condemn philosophy altogether, not merely as useless, but as mischievous dreaming. Thus, it must be confessed, not only were the illegitimate pretensions of the Hegelian system to subordinate to itself all other studies rejected, but no regard was paid to the rightful claims of philosophy, that is, the criticism of the sources of cognition, and the definition of the functions of the intellect. (Helmholz, quoted in Dampier, 1966, pp. 291-292)

   5) The Philosophy of Philosophy

   Philosophy remains true to its classical tradition by renouncing it. (Habermas, 1972, p. 317)

   6) Philosophy Is a Field Which Has Certain Central Questions

   I have not attempted... to put forward any grand view of the nature of philosophy; nor do I have any such grand view to put forth if I would. It will be obvious that I do not agree with those who see philosophy as the history of "howlers" and progress in philosophy as the debunking of howlers. It will also be obvious that I do not agree with those who see philosophy as the enterprise of putting forward a priori truths about the world.... I see philosophy as a field which has certain central questions, for example, the relation between thought and reality.... It seems obvious that in dealing with these questions philosophers have formulated rival research programs, that they have put forward general hypotheses, and that philosophers within each major research program have modified their hypotheses by trial and error, even if they sometimes refuse to admit that that is what they are doing. To that extent philosophy is a "science." To argue about whether philosophy is a science in any more serious sense seems to me to be hardly a useful occupation.... It does not seem to me important to decide whether science is philosophy or philosophy is science as long as one has a conception of both that makes both essential to a responsible view of the world and of man's place in it. (Putnam, 1975, p. xvii)

   7) The Central Task of Philosophy

   What can philosophy contribute to solving the problem of the relation [of] mind to body? Twenty years ago, many English-speaking philosophers would have answered: "Nothing beyond an analysis of the various mental concepts." If we seek knowledge of things, they thought, it is to science that we must turn. Philosophy can only cast light upon our concepts of those things.

   This retreat from things to concepts was not undertaken lightly. Ever since the seventeenth century, the great intellectual fact of our culture has been the incredible expansion of knowledge both in the natural and in the rational sciences (mathematics, logic).

   The success of science created a crisis in philosophy. What was there for philosophy to do? Hume had already perceived the problem in some degree, and so surely did Kant, but it was not until the twentieth century, with the Vienna Circle and with Wittgenstein, that the difficulty began to weigh heavily. Wittgenstein took the view that philosophy could do no more than strive to undo the intellectual knots it itself had tied, so achieving intellectual release, and even a certain illumination, but no knowledge. A little later, and more optimistically, Ryle saw a positive, if reduced role, for philosophy in mapping the "logical geography" of our concepts: how they stood to each other and how they were to be analyzed....

   Since that time, however, philosophers in the "analytic" tradition have swung back from Wittgensteinian and even Rylean pessimism to a more traditional conception of the proper role and tasks of philosophy. Many analytic philosophers now would accept the view that the central task of philosophy is to give an account, or at least play a part in giving an account, of the most general nature of things and of man. (Armstrong, 1990, pp. 37-38)

   8) Philosophy's Evolving Engagement with Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science

   In the beginning, the nature of philosophy's engagement with artificial intelligence and cognitive science was clear enough. The new sciences of the mind were to provide the long-awaited vindication of the most potent dreams of naturalism and materialism. Mind would at last be located firmly within the natural order. We would see in detail how the most perplexing features of the mental realm could be supported by the operations of solely physical laws upon solely physical stuff. Mental causation (the power of, e.g., a belief to cause an action) would emerge as just another species of physical causation. Reasoning would be understood as a kind of automated theorem proving. And the key to both was to be the depiction of the brain as the implementation of multiple higher level programs whose task was to manipulate and transform symbols or representations: inner items with one foot in the physical (they were realized as brain states) and one in the mental (they were bearers of contents, and their physical gymnastics were cleverly designed to respect semantic relationships such as truth preservation). (A. Clark, 1996, p. 1)

   9) The Enduring Value of Philosophy

   Socrates of Athens famously declared that "the unexamined life is not worth living," and his motto aptly explains the impulse to philosophize. Taking nothing for granted, philosophy probes and questions the fundamental presuppositions of every area of human inquiry.... [P]art of the job of the philosopher is to keep at a certain critical distance from current doctrines, whether in the sciences or the arts, and to examine instead how the various elements in our world-view clash, or fit together. Some philosophers have tried to incorporate the results of these inquiries into a grand synoptic view of the nature of reality and our human relationship to it. Others have mistrusted system-building, and seen their primary role as one of clarifications, or the removal of obstacles along the road to truth. But all have shared the Socratic vision of using the human intellect to challenge comfortable preconceptions, insisting that every aspect of human theory and practice be subjected to continuing critical scrutiny....

   Philosophy is, of course, part of a continuing tradition, and there is much to be gained from seeing how that tradition originated and developed. But the principal object of studying the materials in this book is not to pay homage to past genius, but to enrich one's understanding of central problems that are as pressing today as they have always been-problems about knowledge, truth and reality, the nature of the mind, the basis of right action, and the best way to live. These questions help to mark out the territory of philosophy as an academic discipline, but in a wider sense they define the human predicament itself; they will surely continue to be with us for as long as humanity endures. (Cottingham, 1996, pp. xxi-xxii)

    10) The Distinction between Dionysian Man and Apollonian Man, between Art and Creativity and Reason and Self- Control

   In his study of ancient Greek culture, The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche drew what would become a famous distinction, between the Dionysian spirit, the untamed spirit of art and creativity, and the Apollonian, that of reason and self-control. The story of Greek civilization, and all civilizations, Nietzsche implied, was the gradual victory of Apollonian man, with his desire for control over nature and himself, over Dionysian man, who survives only in myth, poetry, music, and drama. Socrates and Plato had attacked the illusions of art as unreal, and had overturned the delicate cultural balance by valuing only man's critical, rational, and controlling consciousness while denigrating his vital life instincts as irrational and base. The result of this division is "Alexandrian man," the civilized and accomplished Greek citizen of the later ancient world, who is "equipped with the greatest forces of knowledge" but in whom the wellsprings of creativity have dried up. (Herman, 1997, pp. 95-96)

Historical dictionary of quotations in cognitive science > Philosophy
8 M.U.C.L.

Юридический термин: Modem Uses of Logic in Law, Modern Uses of Logic in Law

Универсальный англо-русский словарь > M.U.C.L.
9 subject

1. noun
1) (citizen) Staatsbürger, der/-bürgerin, die; (in relation to monarch) Untertan, der/Untertanin, die

2) (topic) Thema, das; (department of study) Fach, das; (area of knowledge) Fach[gebiet], das; (Art) Motiv, das; (Mus.) Thema, das

be the subject of an investigation — Gegenstand einer Untersuchung sein

on the subject of money — über das Thema Geld [reden usw.]; beim Thema Geld [sein, bleiben]

change the subject — das Thema wechseln

3)

be a subject for something — (cause something) zu etwas Anlass geben

4) (Ling., Logic, Philos.) Subjekt, das
2. adjective
1) (conditional)

be subject to something — von etwas abhängig sein od. abhängen

something is subject to alteration — etwas kann geändert werden

2) (prone)

be subject to — anfällig sein für [Krankheit]; neigen zu [Melancholie]

3) (dependent) abhängig

subject to — (dependent on) untertan (+ Dat.) [König usw.]; unterworfen (+ Dat.) [Verfassung, Gesetz, Krone]; untergeben (+ Dat.) [Dienstherrn]
3. adverb
subject to something — vorbehaltlich einer Sache (Gen.)
4. transitive verb
1) (subjugate, make submissive) unterwerfen (to Dat.)

2) (expose)

subject somebody/something to something — jemanden/etwas einer Sache (Dat.) aussetzen

subject somebody to torture — jemanden der Folter unterwerfen

subject something to chemical analysis — etwas einer chemischen Analyse unterziehen

* * *
1. adjective
((of countries etc) not independent, but dominated by another power: subject nations.) abhängig
2. noun
1) (a person who is under the rule of a monarch or a member of a country that has a monarchy etc: We are loyal subjects of the Queen; He is a British subject.) der/die Untertan(in)

2) (someone or something that is talked about, written about etc: We discussed the price of food and similar subjects; What was the subject of the debate?; The teacher tried to think of a good subject for their essay; I've said all I can on that subject.) der Gegenstad

3) (a branch of study or learning in school, university etc: He is taking exams in seven subjects; Mathematics is his best subject.) das Fach

4) (a thing, person or circumstance suitable for, or requiring, a particular kind of treatment, reaction etc: I don't think her behaviour is a subject for laughter.) der Gegenstand

5) (in English, the word(s) representing the person or thing that usually does the action shown by the verb, and with which the verb agrees: The cat sat on the mat; He hit her because she broke his toy; He was hit by the ball.) das Subjekt
3. [səb'‹ekt] verb
1) (to bring (a person, country etc) under control: They have subjected all the neighbouring states (to their rule).) unterwerfen

2) (to cause to suffer, or submit (to something): He was subjected to cruel treatment; These tyres are subjected to various tests before leaving the factory.) aussetzen

•

- academic.ru/71616/subjection">subjection
- subjective
- subjectively
- subject matter
- change the subject
- subject to
* * *

sub·ject

I. n

[ˈsʌbʤɪkt, -ʤekt]

1. (theme, topic) Thema nt

▪ on the \subject of sb/sth über jdn/etw

while we're on the \subject wo wir gerade beim Thema sind

the planes have been the \subject of their concern die Flugzeuge waren Gegenstand ihrer Befürchtungen

the guest lecturer took as her \subject ‘imprisonment in modern society’ die Gastsprecherin hatte ‚die Freiheitsstrafe in der modernen Gesellschaft‘ zu ihrem Thema gewählt

\subject of debate [or discussion] Diskussionsthema nt

the plan has been the \subject of debate recently über den Plan wurde vor Kurzem diskutiert

to change the \subject das Thema wechseln

to wander off the \subject vom Thema abschweifen

2. (person) Versuchsperson f, Testperson f

3. (field) Fach nt; (at school) [Schul]fach nt; (specific research area) Spezialgebiet nt, Fachgebiet nt

he's better at arts \subjects than science in den künstlerischen Fächern ist er besser als in den naturwissenschaftlichen

her \subject is low-temperature physics sie hat sich auf Kältephysik spezialisiert

favourite [or AM favorite] \subject Lieblingsfach nt

4. (under monarchy) Untertan(in) m(f); ( rare: not under monarchy) Staatsbürger(in) m(f)

5. LING Subjekt nt, Satzgegenstand m

II. adj

[ˈsʌbʤɪkt]

1. attr, inv POL (dominated) people unterworfen

2. pred, inv (exposed to)

▪ to be \subject to sth etw dat ausgesetzt sein

these flights are \subject to delay bei diesen Flügen muss mit Verspätung gerechnet werden

the goods are \subject to a 20% discount die Waren sind um 20 % herabgesetzt

to be \subject to colds sich akk leicht erkälten

to be \subject to many dangers vielen Gefahren ausgesetzt sein

to be \subject to depression zu Depressionen neigen

to be \subject to a high rate of tax einer hohen Steuer unterliegen

to be \subject to prosecution LAW offence strafbar sein; person strafrechtlich verfolgt werden

3. (contingent on)

▪ to be \subject to sth von etw dat abhängig sein

to be \subject to approval genehmigungspflichtig sein

\subject to payment vorbehaltlich einer Zahlung, unter dem Vorbehalt einer Zahlung

III. adv

[ˈsʌbʤɪkt]

▪ \subject to wenn

we plan to go on Wednesday \subject to your approval wir haben vor, am Mittwoch zu gehen, wenn du nichts dagegen hast

\subject to your consent vorbehaltlich Ihrer Zustimmung

IV. vt

[səbˈʤekt]

1. (subjugate)

▪ to \subject sb/sth jdn/etw unterwerfen [o geh unterjochen

2. usu passive (cause to undergo)

▪ to \subject sb/sth to sth jdn/etw etw dat aussetzen

▪ to be \subjected to sb/sth jdm/etw ausgesetzt [o unterworfen] sein

everyone interviewed had been \subjected to unfair treatment alle Interviewten waren unfair behandelt worden

to \subject sb/sth to criticism jdn/etw kritisieren

to \subject sb to a lie-detector test jdn einem Lügendetektortest unterziehen

to \subject sb to torture jdn foltern

* * *
['sʌbdZɪkt]
1. n

1) (POL) Staatsbürger(in) m(f); (of king etc) Untertan m, Untertanin f

2) (GRAM) Subjekt nt, Satzgegenstand m

3) (= topic MUS) Thema nt

the subject of the picture is... — das Thema or Sujet (geh)

he paints urban subjects — er malt städtische Motive

to change the subject — das Thema wechseln

on the subject of... — zum Thema (+gen)...

while we're on the subject — da wir gerade beim Thema sind

while we're on the subject of mushrooms — wo wir gerade von Pilzen reden, apropos Pilze

that's off the subject — das gehört nicht zum Thema

4) (= discipline SCH, UNIV) Fach nt; (= specialist subject) (Spezial)gebiet nt

5) (= reason) Grund m, Anlass m (for zu)

6) (= object) Gegenstand m (
of +gen in experiment, = person) Versuchsperson f, Versuchsobjekt nt; (= animal) Versuchstier nt, Versuchsobjekt nt; (ESP MED, for treatment) Typ m
he is the subject of much criticism — er wird stark kritisiert, er ist Gegenstand häufiger Kritik

he's a good subject for treatment by hypnosis — er lässt sich gut hypnotisch behandeln

the survey team asked 100 subjects — die Meinungsforscher befragten 100 Personen

7) (PHILOS: ego) Subjekt nt, Ich nt

8) (PHOT) Objekt nt

2. adj

1) (= conquered) unterworfen

2)

provinces subject to foreign rule — Provinzen pl unter Fremdherrschaft

to be subject to sth (to law, constant change, sb's will) — einer Sache (dat) unterworfen sein; to illness für etw anfällig sein; to consent, approval von etw abhängig sein

northbound trains are subject to delays — bei Zügen in Richtung Norden muss mit Verspätung gerechnet werden

prices/opening times are subject to change or alteration without notice — Preisänderungen/Änderungen der Öffnungszeiten sind vorbehalten

all these plans are subject to last minute changes — all diese Pläne können in letzter Minute noch geändert werden

subject to flooding — überschwemmungsgefährdet

to be subject to taxation — besteuert werden

subject to correction — vorbehaltlich Änderungen

all offers are subject to availability — alle Angebote nur so weit verfügbar

subject to confirmation in writing — vorausgesetzt, es wird schriftlich bestätigt

subject to certain conditions — unter bestimmten Bedingungen

3. vt
[səb'dZekt]
1) (= subjugate) unterwerfen; terrorists, guerrillas zerschlagen

2)

to subject sb to sth (to questioning, analysis, treatment) — jdn einer Sache (dat) unterziehen; to test also jdn einer Sache (dat) unterwerfen; to torture, suffering, heat, ridicule, criticism jdn einer Sache (dat) aussetzen

to subject sb to insults — jdn beschimpfen

to subject sb to criticism — jdn unter Kritik nehmen, jdn kritisieren

4. vr
[səb'dZekt]
to subject oneself to sth (to insults, suffering) — etw hinnehmen; (to criticism, ridicule) sich einer Sache (dat) aussetzen; (to examination, test, questioning) sich einer Sache (dat) unterziehen

* * *

subject [ˈsʌbdʒıkt]

A s

1. (Gesprächs- etc) Gegenstand m, Thema n, Stoff m:

subject of conversation;

a subject for debate ein Diskussionsthema;

change the subject das Thema wechseln, von etwas anderem reden;

don’t change the subject lenk nicht ab!;

on the subject of

a) über (akk), bezüglich (gen),

b) (in Briefen) betrifft, meist abk betr

2. SCHULE, UNIV (Lehr-, Schul-, Studien)Fach n, Fachgebiet n:

the subject of physics;

cooking has never been her subject Kochen war noch nie ihr Fach

3. Grund m, Anlass m ( beide:

for complaint zur Beschwerde)

4. Gegenstand m, Objekt n:

the subject of ridicule der Gegenstand des Spottes

5. MUS Thema n (einer Fuge)

6. KUNST Vorwurf m, Thema n, Sujet n

7. a) Untertan(in)

b) Staatsbürger(in), -angehörige(r) m/f(m):

he is a British subject er hat oder besitzt die britische Staatsangehörigkeit

8. LING Subjekt n, Satzgegenstand m

9. MED etc

a) (Versuchs)Objekt n

b) Versuchsperson f oder -tier n

c) Leichnam m (für Sektionszwecke)

d) Patient(in)

10. (ohne art) die betreffende Person (in Informationen)

11. Logik: Subjekt(sbegriff) n(m)

12. PHIL

a) Substanz f

b) Subjekt n, Ich n:

subject and object Subjekt und Objekt, Ich und Nicht-Ich

B adj

1. untertan, untergeben ( beide:

to dat)

2. abhängig (to von) (Staat etc)

3. ausgesetzt (to dat):

he was subject to ridicule

4. (to) unterworfen, -liegend (dat), abhängig (von), vorbehaltlich (gen):

subject to approval ( oder authorization) genehmigungspflichtig;

be subject to the approval of (erst noch) genehmigt werden müssen von;

“subject to change” „Änderungen vorbehalten“;

“subject to change without notice” WIRTSCH „freibleibend“;

subject to consent vorbehaltlich Ihrer Zustimmung;

subject to duty zollpflichtig;

subject to the laws of nature den Naturgesetzen unterworfen;

“subject to prior sale” WIRTSCH „Zwischenverkauf vorbehalten“

5. anfällig (to für):

he’s subject to headaches er neigt zu Kopfschmerzen

C v/t [səbˈdʒekt]

1. (to) unterwerfen, -jochen, untertan machen (dat), abhängig machen (von)

2. fig unterwerfen, -ziehen, aussetzen ( alle:

to dat):

subject sb to a test jemanden einer Prüfung unterziehen;

subject o.s. to ridicule sich dem Gespött aussetzen

* * *
1. noun
1) (citizen) Staatsbürger, der/-bürgerin, die; (in relation to monarch) Untertan, der/Untertanin, die

2) (topic) Thema, das; (department of study) Fach, das; (area of knowledge) Fach[gebiet], das; (Art) Motiv, das; (Mus.) Thema, das

be the subject of an investigation — Gegenstand einer Untersuchung sein

on the subject of money — über das Thema Geld [reden usw.]; beim Thema Geld [sein, bleiben]

change the subject — das Thema wechseln

3)

be a subject for something — (cause something) zu etwas Anlass geben

4) (Ling., Logic, Philos.) Subjekt, das
2. adjective
1) (conditional)

be subject to something — von etwas abhängig sein od. abhängen

something is subject to alteration — etwas kann geändert werden

2) (prone)

be subject to — anfällig sein für [Krankheit]; neigen zu [Melancholie]

3) (dependent) abhängig

subject to — (dependent on) untertan (+ Dat.) [König usw.]; unterworfen (+ Dat.) [Verfassung, Gesetz, Krone]; untergeben (+ Dat.) [Dienstherrn]
3. adverb
subject to something — vorbehaltlich einer Sache (Gen.)
4. transitive verb
1) (subjugate, make submissive) unterwerfen (to Dat.)

2) (expose)

subject somebody/something to something — jemanden/etwas einer Sache (Dat.) aussetzen

subject somebody to torture — jemanden der Folter unterwerfen

subject something to chemical analysis — etwas einer chemischen Analyse unterziehen

* * *

(grammar) n.

Satzgegenstand f. (one who is submitted to a higher authority) n.

Untertan -en m. (school) n.

Schulfach n. n.

Fach ¨-er n.

Fragenkomplex m.

Gegenstand m.

Lehrfach -¨er n.

Subjekt -e n.

Thema Themen n. v.

unterwerfen v.

English-german dictionary > subject
10 phraseology

ˌfreɪzɪˈɔlədʒɪ сущ.
1) фразеология
2) манера, слог, стиль, язык Parmenides is the founder in modern phraseology, of metaphysics and logic. ≈ Парменид, выражаясь современным языком, является изобретателем метафизики и логики. фразеология язык, слог - in modern * современным языком - he has a * of his own у него оригинальный слог phraseology фразеология ~ язык, слог

Большой англо-русский и русско-английский словарь > phraseology
11 Mind

   1) To Know the Different Operations of the Mind

   It becomes, therefore, no inconsiderable part of science... to know the different operations of the mind, to separate them from each other, to class them under their proper heads, and to correct all that seeming disorder in which they lie involved when made the object of reﬂection and inquiry.... It cannot be doubted that the mind is endowed with several powers and faculties, that these powers are distinct from one another, and that what is really distinct to the immediate perception may be distinguished by reﬂection and, consequently, that there is a truth and falsehood which lie not beyond the compass of human understanding. (Hume, 1955, p. 22)

   2) The Mind Is Furnished by Experience

   Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white Paper, void of all Characters, without any Ideas: How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless Fancy of Man has painted on it, with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of Reason and Knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from Experience. (Locke, quoted in Herrnstein & Boring, 1965, p. 584)

   3) Mythical Thought Is as Rigorous as That of Modern Science

   The kind of logic in mythical thought is as rigorous as that of modern science, and... the difference lies, not in the quality of the intellectual process, but in the nature of things to which it is applied.... Man has always been thinking equally well; the improvement lies, not in an alleged progress of man's mind, but in the discovery of new areas to which it may apply its unchanged and unchanging powers. (Leґvi-Strauss, 1963, p. 230)

   4) The Mind Has Nothing But Itself to Know Itself

   MIND. A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. (Bierce, quoted in Minsky, 1986, p. 55)

   5) To Know Is to Represent Accurately

   [Philosophy] understands the foundations of knowledge and it finds these foundations in a study of man-as-knower, of the "mental processes" or the "activity of representation" which make knowledge possible. To know is to represent accurately what is outside the mind, so to understand the possibility and nature of knowledge is to understand the way in which the mind is able to construct such representation.... We owe the notion of a "theory of knowledge" based on an understanding of "mental processes" to the seventeenth century, and especially to Locke. We owe the notion of "the mind" as a separate entity in which "processes" occur to the same period, and especially to Descartes. We owe the notion of philosophy as a tribunal of pure reason, upholding or denying the claims of the rest of culture, to the eighteenth century and especially to Kant, but this Kantian notion presupposed general assent to Lockean notions of mental processes and Cartesian notions of mental substance. (Rorty, 1979, pp. 3-4)

   6) The Question of Mind in Relation to Machine

   Under pressure from the computer, the question of mind in relation to machine is becoming a central cultural preoccupation. It is becoming for us what sex was to Victorians-threat, obsession, taboo, and fascination. (Turkle, 1984, p. 313)

   7) Understanding the Mind Remains as Resistant to Neurological as to Cognitive Analyses

   Recent years have been exciting for researchers in the brain and cognitive sciences. Both fields have ﬂourished, each spurred on by methodological and conceptual developments, and although understanding the mechanisms of mind is an objective shared by many workers in these areas, their theories and approaches to the problem are vastly different....

   Early experimental psychologists, such as Wundt and James, were as interested in and knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology of the nervous system as about the young science of the mind. However, the experimental study of mental processes was short-lived, being eclipsed by the rise of behaviorism early in this century. It was not until the late 1950s that the signs of a new mentalism first appeared in scattered writings of linguists, philosophers, computer enthusiasts, and psychologists.

   In this new incarnation, the science of mind had a specific mission: to challenge and replace behaviorism. In the meantime, brain science had in many ways become allied with a behaviorist approach.... While behaviorism sought to reduce the mind to statements about bodily action, brain science seeks to explain the mind in terms of physiochemical events occurring in the nervous system. These approaches contrast with contemporary cognitive science, which tries to understand the mind as it is, without any reduction, a view sometimes described as functionalism.

   The cognitive revolution is now in place. Cognition is the subject of contemporary psychology. This was achieved with little or no talk of neurons, action potentials, and neurotransmitters. Similarly, neuroscience has risen to an esteemed position among the biological sciences without much talk of cognitive processes. Do the fields need each other?... [Y]es because the problem of understanding the mind, unlike the wouldbe problem solvers, respects no disciplinary boundaries. It remains as resistant to neurological as to cognitive analyses. (LeDoux & Hirst, 1986, pp. 1-2)

   8) Approaches to the Study of the Mind

   Since the Second World War scientists from different disciplines have turned to the study of the human mind. Computer scientists have tried to emulate its capacity for visual perception. Linguists have struggled with the puzzle of how children acquire language. Ethologists have sought the innate roots of social behaviour. Neurophysiologists have begun to relate the function of nerve cells to complex perceptual and motor processes. Neurologists and neuropsychologists have used the pattern of competence and incompetence of their brain-damaged patients to elucidate the normal workings of the brain. Anthropologists have examined the conceptual structure of cultural practices to advance hypotheses about the basic principles of the mind. These days one meets engineers who work on speech perception, biologists who investigate the mental representation of spatial relations, and physicists who want to understand consciousness. And, of course, psychologists continue to study perception, memory, thought and action.

... [W]orkers in many disciplines have converged on a number of central problems and explanatory ideas. They have realized that no single approach is likely to unravel the workings of the mind: it will not give up its secrets to psychology alone; nor is any other isolated discipline-artificial intelligence, linguistics, anthropology, neurophysiology, philosophy-going to have any greater success. (Johnson-Laird, 1988, p. 7)

Historical dictionary of quotations in cognitive science > Mind
12 MLU

1) Американизм: Minimum Living Unit

2) Военный термин: mid-life update, mobile laundry unit

3) Техника: Mirror Lock Up

4) Религия: Modern Literal Version

5) Лингвистика: средняя

6) Психология: mean length of utterance

7) Сокращение: Mid-Life Update / Upgrade, Monitor & Logic Unit

8) Нефть: mud logging unit, установка для контроля состояния и свойств бурового раствора (mud logging unit)

9) СМИ: Mobile Location Unit

10) Образование: Mobile Learning Unit

11) Аэропорты: Monroe, Louisiana USA

Универсальный англо-русский словарь > MLU
13 fly

I noun
(Zool.) Fliege, die

the only fly in the ointment — (fig.) der einzige Haken [bei der Sache] (ugs.)

he wouldn't hurt a fly — (fig.) er kann keiner Fliege etwas zuleide tun

[there are] no flies on him — (fig. coll.) ihm kann man nichts vormachen (ugs.)
II 1. intransitive verb,
flew, flown

1) fliegen

fly about/away or off — umher-/weg- od. davonfliegen

2) (float, flutter) fliegen

rumours are flying about — (fig.) es gehen Gerüchte um

3) (move quickly) fliegen

come flying towards somebody — jemandem entgegengeflogen kommen

fly open — auffliegen

knock or send somebody/something flying — jemanden/etwas umstoßen

fly into a temper or rage — einen Wutanfall bekommen

4) (fig.)

fly [by or past] — wie im Fluge vergehen

how time flies!, doesn't time fly! — wie die Zeit vergeht!

5) [Fahne:] gehisst sein

6) (attack angrily)

fly at somebody — (lit. or fig.) über jemanden herfallen

let fly — zuschlagen; (fig.): (use strong language) losschimpfen

let fly with — abschießen [Pfeil, Rakete, Gewehr]; werfen [Stein]

7) (flee) fliehen; (coll.): (depart hastily) eilig aufbrechen

I really must fly — (coll.) jetzt muss ich aber schnell los
2. transitive verb,
flew, flown

1) fliegen [Flugzeug, Fracht, Einsatz]; fliegen über (+ Akk.) [Strecke]; (travel over) überfliegen; überqueren

fly Concorde/Lufthansa — mit der Concorde/mit Lufthansa fliegen

2) führen [Flagge]

fly a kite — einen Drachen steigen lassen
3. noun in sing. or pl.
(on trousers) Hosenschlitz, der

Phrasal Verbs:

- academic.ru/28398/fly_in">fly in

- fly off

- fly out

* * *
I plural - flies
nou)

1) (a type of small winged insect.)

2) (a fish hook made to look like a fly so that a fish will take it in its mouth: Which fly should I use to catch a trout?)

3) ((often in plural) a piece of material with buttons or a zip, especially at the front of trousers.)

•

- a fly in the ointment
II past tense - flew; verb
1) (to (make something) go through the air on wings etc or in an aeroplane: The pilot flew (the plane) across the sea.) fliegen

2) (to run away (from): He flew (the country).) fliehen

3) ((of time) to pass quickly: The days flew past.) (ver)fliegen

•

- flyer
- flier
- flying saucer
- flying visit
- frequent flyer/flier
- flyleaf
- flyover
- fly in the face of
- fly into
- fly off the handle
- get off to a flying start
- let fly
- send someone/something flying
- send flying
* * *

fly

[flaɪ]

I. vi

<flew, flown>

1. (through the air) fliegen

we're \flying at 9000 metres wir fliegen in 9000 Meter Höhe

he flew across the Atlantic er überflog den Atlantik

we flew from Heathrow wir flogen von Heathrow ab

▪ to \fly [out] from [or AM also out of] somewhere von irgendwo wegfliegen

▪ to \fly in sth plane, helicopter in etw dat fliegen

2. (in the air) flattern, wehen

the flag was \flying at half-mast die Fahne wehte auf Halbmast

3. (speed)

▪ to \fly somewhere irgendwohin sausen [o stürmen]

the door suddenly flew open die Tür flog plötzlich auf

▪ to \fly by [or past] sb an jdm vorübersausen; see also send

4. ( fam: leave) sich akk sputen

I must \fly ich muss mich sputen

5. ( fam: be successful) Erfolg haben, groß rauskommen

to make sth \fly or flop etw zu einem Renner oder einem Flop machen

6.

▶ to \fly in the face of logic/reason gegen jede Logik/Vernunft verstoßen

▶ sb flies off the handle jdm brennt die Sicherung durch fam

▶ to \fly high AM im siebten Himmel sein

▶ to be \flying low ( dated or hum) den Hosenschlitz offen haben

▶ time flies when you're having fun ( prov) wenn man Spaß hat, vergeht die Zeit wie im Flug

II. vt

<flew, flown>

1. (pilot)

▪ to \fly sth a plane etw fliegen

2. (transport)

▪ to \fly sb/sth somewhere jdn/etw irgendwohin fliegen

3. (raise)

▪ to \fly sth etw wehen lassen

to \fly a flag eine Fahne hissen

the ship was \flying the Spanish flag das Schiff fuhr unter spanischer Flagge

to \fly a kite einen Drachen steigen lassen

4. (travel)

I usually \fly Lufthansa für gewöhnlich fliege ich mit Lufthansa

5.

▶ to \fly the coop ( fam) sich akk aus dem Staub machen

▶ to \fly a kite [for sth] einen Versuchsballon steigen lassen

▶ go \fly a kite! esp AM ( fam) verzieh dich! fam, ÖSTERR a. zieh' Leine! fam

▶ to \fly the nest ( fam) das Nest verlassen

III. n

1. (insect) Fliege f

2. (bait) [künstliche] Fliege

3. (zip) Hosenschlitz m

4. AM (flysheet) Überdach f, Überzelt nt

5. pl THEAT Schnürboden m

6.

▶ to drop [off] like flies ( fam: collapse) sterben wie die Fliegen fam; (stop) massenweise aufhören

▶ sb wouldn't harm [or hurt] a \fly jd würde keiner Fliege etwas zuleide tun

▶ to like [or love] to be a \fly on the wall gerne Mäuschen sein [o spielen]

▶ the \fly in the ointment ( fam) das Haar in der Suppe

▶ there are no flies on sb jdn legt man nicht so leicht rein

▶ \fly the fly schnell

IV. adj

<-er, -est>

( fam)

1. BRIT (sly) gerissen

to be \fly enough gerissen genug sein

2. AM (sl: modern) clothing cool sl, hip sl, in fam, schick

▪ to be \fly ein [o der] Hit sein

* * *
I [flaɪ]
n
Fliege f
they were dying like flies — sie starben wie die Fliegen

small retailers are dropping like flies — kleine Einzelhändler gehen massenweise ein (inf)

he wouldn't hurt or harm a fly — er könnte keiner Fliege etwas zuleide or zu Leide tun

that's the only fly in the ointment (inf) — das ist das einzige Haar in der Suppe

he's the fly in the ointment — er ist Sand im Getriebe

there are no flies on him ( Brit inf ) — ihn legt man nicht so leicht rein (inf)

to be a fly on the wall — Mäuschen sein or spielen
II vb: pret flew, ptp flown
1. vi

1) (person, bird, insect, aircraft etc) fliegen

2) (= move quickly time) (ver)fliegen; (people) sausen (inf), fliegen; (sparks) stieben, fliegen

time flies! — wie die Zeit vergeht!

the company is flying high — die Firma will hoch hinaus

I'm already late, I must fly — ich bin schon spät dran, ich muss jetzt wirklich sausen (inf)

the door flew open — die Tür flog auf

to fly to sb's side — an jds Seite eilen

to fly into a rage — einen Wutanfall bekommen

to fly at sb (inf) —

to let fly at sb — auf jdn losgehen

he really let fly — er legte kräftig los; (verbally also) er zog kräftig vom Leder

to knock or send sb/sth flying — jdn/etw umschmeißen (inf) or umwerfen

he sent the ball flying over the wall — er schleuderte or schmiss (inf) den Ball über die Mauer

to go flying (person) — hinfallen; (object) runterfallen

stories are flying around the office — im Büro gehen Geschichten um

3)

to fly in the face of authority/tradition — sich über jede Autorität/alle Traditionen hinwegsetzen

to fly in the face of reason (person, organization) — sich über jede Vernunft hinwegsetzen; (idea, theory etc) jeder Vernunft entbehren

4) (flag, hair) wehen

2. vt

1) aircraft fliegen; kite steigen lassen

2) passengers, route, plane fliegen; Atlantic überfliegen

3) flag führen, wehen lassen → flag

See:

→ flag

3. n

to go for a fly — fliegen
III pret flew, ptp flown
1. vi
(= flee) fliehen, flüchten
to fly for one's life — um sein Leben laufen/fahren etc

2. vt

to fly the country — aus dem Land flüchten
IV
n

1) (on trousers) (Hosen)schlitz m

2)

See:

= fly sheet

3) pl (THEAT) Obermaschinerie f

4)

See:

= flywheel
V (Brit inf)
1. adj
clever, gerissen
2. n

* * *

fly¹ [flaı]

A s

1. Fliegen n, Flug m:

on the fly

a) im Fluge,

b) ständig auf den Beinen;

change on the fly (Eishockey) fliegend wechseln

2. TECH

a) Unruh(e) f (der Uhr)

b) Schwungstück n, -rad n

3. TYPO (Bogen)Ausleger m

4. → flyleaf

5. Br HIST Einspänner m, Droschke f

6. pl THEAT über der Bühne gelegenes Kulissenmagazin

7. a) Klappe f, Platte f (über einer Knopfleiste etc)

b) auch pl Hosenschlitz m, Hosenlatz m

c) Zeltklappe f, -tür f

B v/i prät flew [fluː], pperf flown [fləʊn]

1. fliegen:

fly high fig hoch hinauswollen, ehrgeizige Ziele haben;

the bird has ( oder is) flown fig der Vogel ist ausgeflogen; → let¹ Bes Redew

2. FLUG fliegen:

fly blind ( oder on instruments) blindfliegen;

fly contact mit Bodensicht fliegen

3. fliegen, stieben (Funken etc):

send things flying Sachen herumwerfen; → feather A 1, fur A 1

4. (nur präs, inf und ppr) → flee A 1

5. stürmen, stürzen, (auch Auto etc) sausen:

fly to arms zu den Waffen eilen;

fly at sb auf jemanden losgehen;

fly at sb’s throat jemandem an die Kehle gehen;

send sb flying

a) jemanden verjagen,

b) jemanden zu Boden schleudern;

I must fly umg ich muss schleunigst weg; → passion 2, rage A 1, temper A 3

6. (ver)fliegen (Zeit):

the day simply flew (by) der Tag verging (wie) im Flug(e)

7. zerrinnen (Geld):

make the money fly das Geld mit vollen Händen ausgeben

8. flattern, wehen

9. JAGD mit einem Falken jagen

10. auch fly to pieces, fly apart zerspringen, bersten (Glas etc), reißen (Saite, Segel etc)

C v/t

1. fliegen lassen:

fly hawks JAGD mit Falken jagen; → kite A 1

2. eine Fahne

a) führen

b) hissen, wehen lassen

3. FLUG

a) ein Flugzeug fliegen, führen

b) jemanden, etwas im Flugzeug befördern, fliegen

c) eine Strecke (be)fliegen

d) den Ozean etc überfliegen

e) mit einer Fluggesellschaft fliegen

4. einen Zaun etc im Sprung nehmen

5. (nur präs, inf und ppr) → flee B 2

fly² [flaı] s

1. ZOOL Fliege f:

he would not hurt ( oder harm) a fly er tut keiner Fliege etwas zuleide;

a fly in the ointment fig ein Haar in der Suppe;

a fly on the wall ein heimlicher Beobachter;

she likes to be a fly on the wall sie spielt gerne Mäuschen;

there are no flies on him umg den legt man nicht so schnell rein;

they died like flies sie starben wie die Fliegen; → wheel A 6

2. Angeln: (künstliche) Fliege:

cast a fly eine Angel auswerfen

3. BOT Fliege f (Pflanzenkrankheit)

fly³ [flaı] adj besonders Br umg gerissen, raffiniert

* * *
I noun
(Zool.) Fliege, die

the only fly in the ointment — (fig.) der einzige Haken [bei der Sache] (ugs.)

he wouldn't hurt a fly — (fig.) er kann keiner Fliege etwas zuleide tun

[there are] no flies on him — (fig. coll.) ihm kann man nichts vormachen (ugs.)
II 1. intransitive verb,
flew, flown

1) fliegen

fly about/away or off — umher-/weg- od. davonfliegen

2) (float, flutter) fliegen

rumours are flying about — (fig.) es gehen Gerüchte um

3) (move quickly) fliegen

come flying towards somebody — jemandem entgegengeflogen kommen

fly open — auffliegen

knock or send somebody/something flying — jemanden/etwas umstoßen

fly into a temper or rage — einen Wutanfall bekommen

4) (fig.)

fly [by or past] — wie im Fluge vergehen

how time flies!, doesn't time fly! — wie die Zeit vergeht!

5) [Fahne:] gehisst sein

6) (attack angrily)

fly at somebody — (lit. or fig.) über jemanden herfallen

let fly — zuschlagen; (fig.): (use strong language) losschimpfen

let fly with — abschießen [Pfeil, Rakete, Gewehr]; werfen [Stein]

7) (flee) fliehen; (coll.): (depart hastily) eilig aufbrechen

I really must fly — (coll.) jetzt muss ich aber schnell los
2. transitive verb,
flew, flown

1) fliegen [Flugzeug, Fracht, Einsatz]; fliegen über (+ Akk.) [Strecke]; (travel over) überfliegen; überqueren

fly Concorde/Lufthansa — mit der Concorde/mit Lufthansa fliegen

2) führen [Flagge]

fly a kite — einen Drachen steigen lassen
3. noun in sing. or pl.
(on trousers) Hosenschlitz, der

Phrasal Verbs:

- fly in

- fly off

- fly out

* * *

(insect) n.

Stubenfliege f. n.

Fliege -n f. v.

(§ p.,p.p.: flew, flown)

= befliegen (Strecke) v.

fliegen v.

(§ p.,pp.: flog, ist/hat geflogen)

English-german dictionary > fly
14 fly

[flaɪ] vi <flew, flown>

1)

( through the air) fliegen;

we're \flying at 9000 metres wir fliegen in 9000 Meter Höhe;

he flew across the Atlantic er überflog den Atlantik;

we flew from Heathrow wir flogen von Heathrow ab;

to \fly [out] from [or (Am a.) out of] somewhere von irgendwo wegfliegen;

to \fly in sth plane, helicopter in etw dat fliegen

2) ( in the air) flattern, wehen;

the flag was \flying at half-mast die Fahne wehte auf Halbmast

3) ( speed)

to \fly somewhere irgendwohin sausen [o stürmen];

the door suddenly flew open die Tür flog plötzlich auf;

to \fly by [or past] sb an jdm vorübersausen; see also send

4) (fam: leave) sich akk sputen;

I must \fly ich muss mich sputen

5) (fam: be successful) Erfolg haben, groß rauskommen;

to make sth \fly or flop etw zu einem Renner oder einem Flop machen

PHRASES:

to \fly in the face of logic/ reason gegen jede Logik/Vernunft verstoßen;

sb flies off the handle jdm brennt die Sicherung durch ( fam)

time flies when you're having fun ( flies when you're having fun) wenn man Spaß hat, vergeht die Zeit wie im Flug;

to \fly high (Am) im siebten Himmel sein;

to be \flying low (dated); ( hum) den Hosenschlitz offen haben vt <flew, flown>

1) ( pilot)

to \fly sth a plane etw fliegen

2) ( transport)

to \fly sb/ sth somewhere jdn/etw irgendwohin fliegen

3) ( raise)

to \fly sth etw wehen lassen;

to \fly a flag eine Fahne hissen;

the ship was \flying the Spanish flag das Schiff fuhr unter spanischer Flagge;

to \fly a kite einen Drachen steigen lassen

4) ( travel)

I usually \fly Lufthansa für gewöhnlich fliege ich mit Lufthansa

PHRASES:

to \fly the coop ( fam) sich aus dem Staub machen;

to \fly a kite [for sth] einen Versuchsballon steigen lassen;

go \fly a kite! ( esp Am) ( fam) verzieh dich! ( fam)

to \fly the nest ( fam) das Nest verlassen n

1) ( insect) Fliege f

2) ( bait) [künstliche] Fliege

3) ( zip) Hosenschlitz m

4) (Am) ( flysheet) Überdach f, Überzelt nt

PHRASES:

the \fly in the ointment ( fam) das Haar in der Suppe;

to like [or love] to be a \fly on the wall gerne Mäuschen sein [o spielen];

to drop [off] like flies (fam: collapse) sterben wie die Fliegen ( fam) ( stop) massenweise aufhören;

sb wouldn't harm [or hurt] a \fly jd würde keiner Fliege etwas zuleide tun;

there are no flies on sb jdn legt man nicht so leicht rein adj <-er, -est> ( fam)

1) ( Brit) ( sly) gerissen;

to be \fly enough gerissen genug sein

2) (Am) (sl: modern) clothing cool (sl), hip (sl), in ( fam), schick;

to be \fly ein [o der] Hit sein

English-German students dictionary > fly
15 M.U.C.L.

сокр. от Modern Uses of Logic in Law

"Применение современных логических методов в праве" (ежеквартальный журнал, 1962-1966)

Англо-русский юридический словарь > M.U.C.L.
16 phraseology

[ˌfreɪzɪ'ɔləʤɪ]
сущ.

1) лингв. фразеология

2) манера, слог, стиль, язык

Parmenides is the founder, in modern phraseology, of metaphysics and logic. — Парменид, выражаясь современным языком, является основателем метафизики и логики.

Англо-русский современный словарь > phraseology

См. также в других словарях:

Logic — • A historical survey from Indian and Pre Aristotelian philosophy to the Logic of John Stuart Mill Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight. 2006. Logic Logic … Catholic encyclopedia
logic, history of — Introduction the history of the discipline from its origins among the ancient Greeks to the present time. Origins of logic in the West Precursors of ancient logic There was a medieval tradition according to which the Greek philosopher … Universalium
Logic — For other uses, see Logic (disambiguation). Philosophy … Wikipedia
logic — logicless, adj. /loj ik/, n. 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of… … Universalium
logic, philosophy of — Philosophical study of the nature and scope of logic. Examples of questions raised in the philosophy of logic are: In virtue of what features of reality are the laws of logic true? ; How do we know the truths of logic? ; and Could the laws of… … Universalium
logic — The general science of inference. Deductive logic, in which a conclusion follows from a set of premises, is distinguished from inductive logic, which studies the way in which premises may support a conclusion without entailing it. In deductive… … Philosophy dictionary
logic — noun /ˈlɒdʒɪk,ˈlɑːdʒɪk/ a) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step by step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method. Its hard to work out his system … Wiktionary
Logic and the philosophy of mathematics in the nineteenth century — John Stillwell INTRODUCTION In its history of over two thousand years, mathematics has seldom been disturbed by philosophical disputes. Ever since Plato, who is said to have put the slogan ‘Let no one who is not a geometer enter here’ over the… … History of philosophy
Logic programming — is, in its broadest sense, the use of mathematical logic for computer programming. In this view of logic programming, which can be traced at least as far back as John McCarthy s [1958] advice taker proposal, logic is used as a purely declarative… … Wikipedia
Logic in Islamic philosophy — Logic (Arabic: Mantiq ) played an important role in early Islamic philosophy. Islamic law placed importance on formulating standards of argument, which gave rise to a novel approach to logic in Kalam, as seen in the method of qiyas . This… … Wikipedia
Modern philosophy — is a type of philosophy that originated in Western Europe in the 17th century, and is now common worldwide. It is not a specific doctrine or school (and so should not be confused with Modernism), although there are certain assumptions common to… … Wikipedia

Словари и энциклопедии на Академике

Перевод: с английского на все языки

modern logic

См. также в других словарях:

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное

Словари и энциклопедии на Академике

Перевод: с английского на все языки

modern logic

См. также в других словарях:

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное

Прямая ссылка: