-
21 Д-217
кому HE ДО кого-чего ( Invar the resulting PrepP is impers predic with бытье) s.o. does not have the time or desire, is not in the proper frame of mind etc to handle, think about, or deal with some person or matter: X-y не до Y-a = X isn't (doesn't feel) up to thing Y X can't be bothered with Y X has no time for Y this is no time for thing Y X is not in the mood (in no mood) for Y X has other things on his mind (than thing Y) X has better (more important) things to think about (than Y) (in limited contexts) X doesn't feel much like doing thing Y X isn't into it (thing Y).В другое время Чонкин подивился бы незаурядному дарованию Плечевого, но теперь было не до того (Войнович 2). Another time Chonkin would have stopped to marvel at Burly's unusual talent, but he wasn't up to it at that particular moment (2a).Редко когда тётка Бекей бывает в добром настроении. Чаше - мрачная и раздражённая - она не замечает своего племянника. Ей не до него (Айтматов 1). Aunt Bekey was seldom in a good mood. Most of the time, gloomy and irritable, she paid no attention to her nephew She couldn't be bothered with him (1a).Ha чем все-таки подорвались Мотя и Броня? Может быть, играли с найденной миной или гранатой? Им, знаете, было не до игр (Рыбаков 1). How had Motya and Bronya blown themselves up? Maybe they were playing with a mine they'd found, or a grenade? They had no time for games... (1a).«Молчите, - шепнула она, — нынче не до шуток» (Окуджава 2). "Shh," she whispered, "this is no time for jokes" (2a).Он начал было побаиваться, чтобы (чиновники) не узнали его экипажа, но им было не до того (Гоголь 3). Не felt apprehensive lest they (the officials) should recognize his carriage but they were not in the mood for noticing such things (3c).На днях, посмотрев на лес, который всегда был далёким и недоступным, я вдруг подумал, что это мой лес, и удивился такой свободе мыслей. Что значит весна. В последний год, полагаю, мне будет уже не до этих тонкостей (Терц 3). The other day, looking out at the forest which has always been so remote and inaccessible, I suddenly conceived of it as my forest and felt surprised at such freedom of thought. That's what spring does for you. During my last year here I imagine that I shall have other things on my mind than fine points such as this (3a).Работники скупки и домовой лавки, которые были ограблены... пришли в управление для того, чтобы опознать одного из грабителей. В кабинете у Садчикова посадили трёх парней, приглашённых студентов-практикантов из университета. Студенты всё время улыбались и весело переглядывались - это была их первая практика. Садчиков сказал: «Вы это, х-хлопцы, бросьте. Мы сейчас приведём т-того парня, так ему не до улыбок. Ясно?» (Семёнов 1). The staff of the pawnshop that had been robbed...had come to headquarters in order to identify one of the thieves. Three students doing their practical work at the university had been invited to Sadchikov's office. They smiled and looked at one another cheerfully the whole time-this was their first case. Sadchikov said: "Right, pack it up, l-lads. We're going to bring the other b-boy in now and he doesn't feel much like laughing. Got it?" (1a). -
22 не до
[Invar; the resulting PrepP is impers predic with быть]=====⇒ s.o. does not have the time or desire, is not in the proper frame of mind etc to handle, think about, or deal with some person or matter:- [in limited contexts] X doesn't feel much like doing thing Y;- X isn't into it (thing Y).♦ В другое время Чонкин подивился бы незаурядному дарованию Плечевого, но теперь было не до того (Войнович 2). Another time Chonkin would have stopped to marvel at Buriy's unusual talent, but he wasn't up to it at that particular moment (2a).♦ Редко когда тётка Бекей бывает в добром настроении. Чаше - мрачная и раздражённая - она не замечает своего племянника. Ей не до него (Айтматов 1). Aunt Bekey was seldom in a good mood. Most of the time, gloomy and irritable, she paid no attention to her nephew. She couldn't be bothered with him (1a).♦ На чём все-таки подорвались Мотя и Броня? Может быть, играли с найденной миной или гранатой? Им, знаете, было не до игр (Рыбаков 1). How had Motya and Bronya blown themselves up? Maybe they were playing with a mine they'd found, or a grenade? They had no time for games... (1a).♦ "Молчите, - шепнула она, - нынче не до шуток" (Окуджава 2). "Shh," she whispered, "this is no time for jokes" (2a).♦ Он начал было побаиваться, чтобы [чиновники] не узнали его экипажа, но им было не до того (Гоголь 3). He felt apprehensive lest they [the officials] should recognize his carriage but they were not in the mood for noticing such things (3c).♦ На днях, посмотрев на лес, который всегда был далёким и недоступным, я вдруг подумал, что это мой лес, и удивился такой свободе мыслей. Что значит весна. В последний год, полагаю, мне будет уже не до этих тонкостей (Терц 3). The other day, looking out at the forest which has always been so remote and inaccessible, I suddenly conceived of it as my forest and felt surprised at such freedom of thought. That's what spring does for you. During my last year here I imagine that I shall have other things on my mind than fine points such as this (3a).♦ Работники скупки и домовой лавки, которые были ограблены... пришли в управление для того, чтобы опознать одного из грабителей. В кабинете у Садчикова посадили трёх парней, приглашённых студентов-практикантов из университета. Студенты всё время улыбались и весело переглядывались - это была их первая практика. Садчиков сказал: "Вы это, х-хлопцы, бросьте. Мы сейчас приведём т-того парня, так ему не до улыбок. Ясно?" (Семёнов 1). The staff of the pawnshop that had been robbed...had come to headquarters in order to identify one of the thieves. Three students doing their practical work at the university had been invited to Sadchikov's office. They smiled and looked at one another cheerfully the whole time-this was their first case. Sadchikov said: "Right, pack it up, 1-lads. We're going to bring the other b-boy in now and he doesn't feel much like laughing. Got it?" (1a). -
23 question
question [ˈkwest∫ən]1. nouna. question fb. ( = doubt) there is no question about it cela ne fait aucun doute• there's no question that this is better une chose est sûre, c'est mieux• she is without question one of the greatest writers of her generation elle est sans conteste l'un des plus grands écrivains de sa générationc. ( = matter, subject) question f• it's all a question of what you want to do eventually tout dépend de ce que tu veux faire en fin de comptea. [+ person] interrogerb. [+ motive, account, sb's honesty] remettre en question3. compounds• there is a question mark over whether he meant to do it on ne sait pas au juste s'il avait l'intention de le faire━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━* * *['kwestʃən] 1.1) ( request for information) question f ( about sur); ( in exam) question fin reply to a question from Mr John Molloy — en réponse à une question posée par M. John Molloy
a question from the floor — ( in parliament) une question provenant de l'assemblée
2) ( practical issue) problème m; ( ethical issue) question fthe question arises as to who is going to pay the bill — la question se pose, à savoir qui va payer la note
3) ( uncertainty) doute m2.transitive verb1) ( interrogate) questionner [suspect, politician]2) ( cast doubt upon) ( on one occasion) mettre en doute [tactics, methods]; ( over longer period) douter de [tactics, methods]to question whether — douter que (+ subj)
-
24 Artificial Intelligence
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)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)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, EventuallyJust 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 ProgramMany 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)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)[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)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 FormThe 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)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)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)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)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 FormationIt 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)We might distinguish among four kinds of 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.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.... 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)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 ContextsEven 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)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)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 IntelligenceThe 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)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 PropositionsIn 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)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)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)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
-
25 соображение
(= резон, причина) concept, consideration, reason, argument• В следующей части параграфа приводятся некоторые дополнительные соображения. - The following subsection outlines some additional considerations.• Вследствие этого и других соображений, мы ограничимся... - For this and other reasons, we limit ourselves to...• Далее, из элементарных соображений мы знаем, что... - Furthermore, we know from elementary considerations that...• Из геометрических соображений легко видно, что... - It is easily seen geometrically that...• Из соображений на будущее было рекомендовано, чтобы... - For planning purposes it was recommended that...• Из соображений простоты мы будем рассматривать случай, в котором... - For the sake of simplicity we will consider a case in which...• Из физических соображений мы могли бы ожидать, что... - On physical grounds we might expect that...• Из физических соображений (= с физической точки зрения) это возникает вследствие... - Physically this arises because of...• Из физических соображений этого можно было бы ожидать, потому что... - Physically, this could be expected because...• Исходя из вышеприведенных соображений, ясно, что... - From the above reasoning it is clear that...• На основании ряда физических соображений он установил, что... - Не established, on several physical grounds, that...• Общие соображения показывают... - It is a matter of common observation that...• Однако из практических соображений принято... - However, for practical reasons it is conventional to...• По некоторым соображениям удобно... - For some purposes it is convenient to...• Такой способ принят из соображений простоты. - This policy is adopted in the interest of simplicity.• Теоретические соображения показывают, что... - Theoretical considerations show that...• Теперь мы получим ту же самую формулу из других соображений. - We now obtain the same formula from another point of view.• Точно те же самые соображения могут быть приложены здесь, но с одним существенным отличием:... - Exactly the same considerations apply here, with one important difference:...• Это немедленно вытекает из физических соображений. - This follows at once from physical considerations.• Это определение основано на следующих соображениях. - This definition is based on the following considerations. -
26 pratica sf
['pratika] pratica (-che)1) (attività) practicein pratica — (praticamente) in practice
far pratica presso un avvocato — to be articled to a solicitor Brit o lawyer Am
3) (Amm : incartamento) file, dossier, (affare) matter, case4) (usanza) practice -
27 side
[saɪd]n1) поверхность, сторона, бок, боковая сторонаThe car turned over on its side. — Машина перевернулась на бок.
The boat was lying on its side. — Лодка лежала на боку.
I'll put it on epy side for you. — Я отложу это для вас.
He stood with his head to one side. — Он стоял, склонив голову набок.
The margin of a page should be on the left-hand side. — Поля страницы должны быть с левой стороны.
- sunny side- smooth side
- inner side
- back side
- mountain sides
- left side
- side street
- side window
- side remark
- right side of the cloth
- wrong side of the cloth
- business side of the hammer
- two sides of the coin
- east side of the town
- sides of a cup
- side of a house
- side of the boat
- fashionable side of the town
- side by side
- six sides of the cube
- bright side of existence
- reverse side of life
- deep lines at the sides of his eyes
- drawer with oak sides
- pain in one's side
- on both sides
- on both sides of the river
- by the side of the building stood a shed
- from the land side co
- on one side of the head
- on the left side
- on this side
- on the other side
- on neither side
- from all sides co
- on all sides
- from side to side
- of the side of the road
- on the side of the bed
- on one side of the room
- from under one's side
- stand on the safe side
- use only one side of the page
- keep on the safe side
- go round the sides of the house
- cast the anchor on the lee side
- put smth on one side
- look at smth from the side
- earn money on the side
- draw back to one side
- stide the screen to one side
- hang at one's side
- toss and turn from side to side
- have a stitch in one's side
- lay down on one's side
- lie on the left side
- slap one's sides
- roll over on one's side
- nudge smb in the side
- bump one's side on smth
- stand by smb's side
- laugh till one's sides ache
- label is on the side of the box2) аспект, сторонаThere is another side to the problem. — На эту проблему можно взглянуть по-разному/по-другому.
Every man has his weak sides. — У каждого человека есть слабые стороны.
There is a bright side to all things. — Во всем есть своя положительная сторона.
- side effect- practical side of the problem
- ethical side of art
- animal side of the man's nature
- money-making side of the matter
- weak side of the music
- important side of their activity
- certain sides of the subject
- side of his character not generally known
- bring up only side issues
- know both sides of the question
- err on the side of generosity
- be small by smb's side
- appeal to the better side of human nature
- err on the side of optimism
- err on the side of optimism of charity3) родство, линия родства- be related on the father's side4) позиция, точка зрения, стороны в споре, стороны в соревнованииYou should take neither side. — Не следует защищать ни ту, ни другую сторону.
It takes both sides to tell the truth. — Надо выслушать обе версии (позиции), чтобы выяснить истину.
Time is on our side. — Время работает на нас.
To know on which side his bread is buttered. — ◊ Быть себе на уме. /Своего не упустить.
There are two sides of very question. — ◊ Каждый смотрит со своей колокольни. /У каждой медали есть оборотная сторона.
- strong side- winning side
- losing side
- home side
- guast side
- be on the side of the moderates against the extremists
- be on the right side
- be on the same side of the fence
- take sides
- not to take sides
- be both sides of the fence
- choose sides
- take opposite sides
- take sides with smb
- change sides
- look on the gloomy side of things
- play on opposite sides•CHOICE OF WORDSE:Русское словосочетание с чьей-либо стороны в зависимости от его содержания соответствует двум английским оборотам - on smb's part и it's... of smb: there were no objections on his part с его стороны/с его точки зрения/в соответствии с его мнением возражений не было; it's so nice (kind, bad) of him с его стороны/судя по его поступкам, поведению это очень мило (любезно, плохо). -
28 step
I [step] n1) шагIt is only a short step from here to the station. — До станции отсюда рукой подать.
It is a good step to the river. — До реки не так уж близко.
Each step was an effort. — Каждый шаг стоил больших усилий.
I can't go a further step. — Я больше не могу ступить ни шагу.
- muffled stepsThe first steps are always the hardest. — Первые шаги всегда самые трудные.
- mincing steps
- step forward
- step by step
- few steps from here
- every step of the way
- at every step
- with stealthy steps
- in step
- out of step
- advance in long steps
- be three steps away from smb
- be in step with others
- be out of step with the times
- break step
- change step
- follow in smb's steps
- double upon one's steps
- fall into step
- go another step
- go a few steps
- hear soft steps on the stairs
- keep step
- lose step
- make a step toward smb- make a step aside- make a step to the side
- miss one's step
- make steps in the right direction
- march in step with the music
- pick one's steps- slacken one's step- recognize smb's steps
- retrace one's steps
- see steps in the snow
- not to stir a step
- take a step back
- take a few uncertain steps
- take a step closer
- turn one's steps towards home
- turn one's steps in his direction
- walk with regular steps
- walk two steps ahead of the rest of the group2) походка, поступь, "па" (в танце)She was heavy (light, firm) of step. — У нее тяжелая (легкая, твердая) походка.
Her step was without its usual spring. — В ее походке не было обычной упругости.
- light step- stately step
- double step
- fast step
- gliding step
- polke steps
- dance with funny steps
- know smb by his step
- perform a step
- take some dance steps3) ступенькаThe steps are worn by many feet. — Ступеньки стерлись от бесконечного хождения по ним.
Mind the step outside the door. — Осторожно, за дверью ступенька.
- marble stepsBroad steps lead down into the garden. — В сад вели широкие ступени.
- flight of concrete steps
- winding steps
- porch steps
- up and down the steps
- steps to the stage
- steps of the house
- flight of steps
- ladder of fourteen steps- set of steps- on the top step
- cut steps in the rock
- descent the steps
- go down one step at a time
- pull smth, smb off the steps
- push smb from the steps
- run down the steps
- fall down the steps
- sit on the top step
- slip down the step
- sweep the steps
- take a whole step
- take two steps at a time4) мера, шаг, действие, поступокThat was the wrong step to take. — Это был неверный шаг.
One false step will ruin everything. — Один неверный шаг - и все пропало. /Один неверный шаг все погубит.
It was a difficult step for her to take. — Для нее это был трудный шаг.
It's the next-to-final step. — Это предпоследняя мера.
This is only the first step. — Это только начало.
It is the first step that counts. — ◊ Лиха беда начало.
There is but one step between the sublime and the ridiculous/between the rudicrous and the sublime. — ◊ От великого до смешного один шаг.
One step at a time. — ◊ Тише едешь, дальше будешь
- important step- rash step
- preminary steps
- extreme steps
- concluding step
- inevitable step in the evolution process
- chief steps in the argument
- easy steps in the study
- first step to independence
- account for every step taken
- take steps to help smb
- make a very foolish step
- take steps against attack
- take practical steps
- take advantage of every step forward
- take steps to clarify the matter
- no further steps will be taken
- drastic steps are called for II [step] vшагать, ступать, делать шаг, делать "па" (в танце)- step back- step forward
- step lightly -
29 pratica
sf ['pratika] pratica (-che)1) (attività) practicein pratica — (praticamente) in practice
far pratica presso un avvocato — to be articled to a solicitor Brit o lawyer Am
3) (Amm : incartamento) file, dossier, (affare) matter, case4) (usanza) practice -
30 хлеб насущный
1) (то, что необходимо для жизни, существования, пропитания) < our> daily bread; daily mealsЗдесь развернулась другая сторона дарования Богословского - его хозяйственность, понимание того, что такое "хлеб наш насущный", привычка к деревенской жизни, энергическая любовь к земле и её благам. (Ю. Герман, Дело, которому ты служишь) — At this point Bogoslovsky displayed another aspect of his gifted personality: the acumen of a good husbandman. He had good practical sense, knew the value of 'our daily bread', was no stranger to farming, and actively loved the soil and its blessings.
При домишке был огород, которым занимались все, потому что речь шла о хлебе насущном. (Б. Васильев, Летят мои кони...) — The house had a kitchen garden which everyone helped to tend because it was a matter of our daily meals.
2) (нечто самое важное, необходимое) one's daily bread; the be-all and end-allДля нас, молодых, ваш опыт - хлеб насущный. (Я. Ильичёв, Добрые глаза века) — For us, the young, your experience is our daily bread, the be-all and end-all.
-
31 ὑπόθεσις
A proposal, proposed action,τὴν ἐν φίλοις δικαιοτάτην ὑ. ἔχω ὑποτιθέναι X.Cyr.5.5.13
;ἵνα σὺ τὰ σαυτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑ. ὅπως ἂν βούλῃ περαίνῃς Pl.Grg. 454c
; intention, policy,πολλὰ πρᾶξαι πρὸς τὴν ὑ. τῆς πατρίδος ὡς συχνῆς ἀδικίας δεομένην Thphr.Fr. 136
;διὰ τὴν ὑ. τῆς πολιτείας.. ἠναγκάζετο χρῆσθαι τοῖς ὑπουργοῦσι Plu.Caes.51
; πρὸς ὑ. τινα ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν men good for a particular policy, Arist.Pol. 1293b4; ὑ. τῆς δημοκρατικῆς πολιτείας ἐλευθερία ib. 1317a40; ἡμῖν ἡ τῶν νόμων ὑ. ἐνταῦθα ἔβλεπεν, ὅπως .. Pl.Lg. 743c;περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἅπασι βουλευτέον, ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἕκαστοι τοῦ βίου ποιήσωνται τὴν ὑ. Isoc.6.90
;τοῖς φαύλοις ἐνδέχεται τὰ τυχόντα πράττειν· εὐθὺς γὰρ τοῦ βίου τοιαύτην πεποίηνται τὴν ὑ. Id.1.48
;ἀνάγκη τοῖς περὶ ὅλων τῶν πραγμάτων καλὰς τὰς ὑ. πεποιημένοις καὶ τὰ μέρη τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἔχειν ἐκείνοις Id.7.28
;πρὸς ταύτην τὴν ὑ. ἀποβλέποντες ἄμεινον βουλευσόμεθα καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων Id.8.18
;ἐξέστητε τῆς ὑ. ἐφ' ἧς ὑμᾶς οἱ πρόγονοι κατέλιπον D.10.46
; οἱ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑ. προεστῶτες those who advocated the same policy, Plb.30.32.12;ἅπαντας ἀπονεύσειν ἐπ' ἐκείνην τὴν ὑ. Id.24.9.7
; Ἀχαϊκωτέραν εἶναι.. ταύτην τὴν ὑ. καὶ νικητικωτέραν ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς ib.4;τὸ τῆς ἰδίας ὑ. λαμπρόν Id.21.23.1
;τὸ τῶν σαρισῶν μέγεθός ἐστι κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑ. ἑκκαίδεκα πηχῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἁρμογὴν τὴν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν δεκατεττάρων Id.18.29.2
;τηροῦντες τὴν αὑτῶν ὑ. Id.5.5.5
;πρὸς ταύτην ἁρμοζόμενοι τὴν ὑ. Id.3.16.1
, cf. 3.50.7; κατασκέψασθαι τὴν τῶν ὑπεναντίων ἐπίνοιαν καὶ τὴν ὅλην ὑ. ib.6;Φάβιος.. κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑ. οὐδαμῶς κρίνων ἐκκυβεύειν οὐδὲ παραβάλλεσθαι τοῖς ὅλοις Id.3.94.4
.2 suggestion, advice,ἐδώκαμεν ἄν σοι ὑποθέσεις δι' ὧν οἱ ἀντίδικοι ἂν οἴμωζον PMich.Zen.57.7
(iii B. C.);διελέγοντο.. κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς Ἀράτου καὶ τὰς ὑ. Plb. 2.48.8
, cf. 2.52.6, 4.24.2;κροτηθείσης τῆς ὑ. Id.28.16.5
; πολυτέχνους ὑ. ἔργων elaborate proposals for works, Plu.Per.12.3 purpose, ;λόγῳ μὲν ἀποδώσων.., ἑτέραν δὲ τῆς ἀποδημίας ἔχων ὑ. λανθάνουσαν τοὺς πολλούς Id.Mar.31
;ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς αἰτίας τῆς τε ὑ. τοῦ πολέμου ἀξιολογώτατος ἀγὼν συνηνέχθη D.C.41.56
;ὑ. τοῦ πολέμου καὶ πρόφασιν διδόντων ἐλευθεροῦν τοὺς Ἕλληνας Plu.Flam.15
;τὸ χωρὶς ὑποθέσεως πολεμεῖν.. τί ἄλλο ἢ μανία; D.Chr.38.17
; [οἱ ἐλέφαντες] ἴσασι τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ἐπ' αὐτοὺς τὴν ὑ... εἶναι.. τοὺς ὀδόντας Ael.NA6.56
.4 occasion, excuse, pretext,οὕτω γὰρ ἂν αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀπολογία προαναιροῖτο καὶ ἡ πρώτη ὑ. τῆς ἐθελοδουλείας Luc.Merc.Cond.5
; τοιαύτης αὐτοῖς τῆς ὑ. οὔσης ib.10;ἀεὶ χρὴ ἐπί τινι λυπεῖσθαι καὶ μὴ ἄνευ ὑ. Artem.
2.60;ὑ. ἀργυρισμοῦ καὶ φόνων εἰληφέναι ἐδόκει D.C.63.26
;μή με νομίσῃς ἀπὸ τῆς παρούσης ὑ. ἀπαρτᾶν τὸν λόγον Id.52.18
.5 actor's role,τοὺς ὑποκριτὰς.. οὓς ὁρῶμεν οὔτε κλαίοντας ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις, ὡς αὐτοὶ θέλουσιν, ἀλλ' ὡς ὁ ἀγὼν ἀπαιτεῖ πρὸς τὴν ὑ. Plu.Dem.22
;ὶδεῖν τί μου ποιεῖ ὁ ἀθλητής, πῶς μελετᾷ τὴν ὑ. Arr.Epict.1.29.38
, cf. 41;τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῆς μητρὸς ὑ. λαβεῖν Iamb.VP8.39
.6 function, occupation, station in life, [Διονύσιος] ἐκ σημοτικῆς καὶ ταπεινῆς ὑ. ὁρμηθείς Plb.15.35.2
; [Ἀγαθοκλῆς] ὁρμηθεὶς ἀπὸ τοιαύτης ὑ. Id.12.15.7
;τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄλλην βίου ὑ. εἰς τὸ φιλοσοφεῖν οὕτως ἐπιτήδειον ὡς ταύτην ἐν ᾗ νῦν ὢν τυγχάνεις M.Ant.11.7
, cf. 8.1, Paul. Aeg.3.17.7 practical problem,κοινὴ ἡ ὑ. καὶ τῷ καθ' ἡμᾶς βίῳ πάνυ πολλή, βαλανείου κατασκευή Luc.Hipp.4
;ἡ μὲν οὖν ὑ. τοιαύτη HeroAut.21.2
.II subject proposed ( to oneself or another) for discussion,κελεῦσαι τὴν πρώτην ὑ. τοῦ πρώτου λόγου ἀναγνῶναι Pl. Prm. 127d
;ἐπὶ τὴν ὑ. ἐπανάγειν τὸν λόγον X.Mem.4.6.13
;ἐπὶ τὴν ὑ. πάλιν ἐπανελθεῖν Isoc.4.63
, cf. Gal.6.124;τὴν ὑ. περὶ ἧς βουλεύεσθε οὐχὶ τὴν οὖσαν παριστάντες D.3.1
;τοὺς δικαστὰς ἀπαγαγὼν ἀπὸ τῆς ὑ. Id.19.242
;ἐπὶ τῆς ὑ. μεῖναι Aeschin.3.76
;ἔξω τῆς ὑ. λέγειν Isoc.7.63
, cf. 12.161;μὴ πόρρω λίαν τῆς ὑ. ἀποπλανηθῶ Id.7.77
, cf. 12.88, Aeschin. 3.176,190;ὅτ' ἔγραφον περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑ. Isoc.5.83
;περὶ [τῆς πόλεως] τὴν ὑ. ποιησάμενος Id.12.35
;τοῦ πράγματος ἐν κεφαλαίῳ.. δήλωσις, ἵνα γινώσκωσι περὶ ὧν ὁ λόγος παρακολουθῶσί τε τῇ ὑ. Arist.Rh.Al. 1436a36
, cf. Pl.Def. 415b;ἡ ὑ. ἐλάττων Arist.Rh. 1404b15
; πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν λέγειν, opp. πρὸς ἀμφισβητοῦντα, ib. 1391b13;πολλὰ πρὸς τὴν ὑ. οἰκείως διαλεχθείς D.S.13.53
; haec erat ὑ., de gravitate ordinis, etc., Cic.Att.1.14.4.2 case at law, lawsuit,γράφει ὁ Μαιίστας εἰς τὴν ὑ. ταύτην IG11(4).1299.29
(Delos, iii B. C.), cf. OGI665.18,669.41 (both Egypt, i A. D.), POxy. 237 vii 34, viii 22 (ii A. D.), 486.26 (ii A. D.);τὰ περὶ ταύτης τῆς ὑ. πεπραγμένα PLips.34.18
(iv A. D.).3 subject of a poem or treatise, Zeno Stoic.1.23, Plb.1.2.1, D.H.Pomp.3, Longin. 38.2, Plu.Pomp.42, Luc.Charid.14, Pseudol.5, al.; of a picture, Id.Zeux.5,7; of an impromptu declamation,ἐπειδὰν οἱ παρόντες ὑποβάλωσί τινας ὑ. καὶ ἀφορμὰς λόγου Id.Rh.Pr.18
; plot, story,μῦθοι καὶ ὑποθέσεις Phld.Po.2.62
, cf. 5.5, al., Arg.Men.Oxy.1235.113 (ii A. D.), Dicaearch. ap. S.E.M.3.3, Artem.4.59, Sch.S.Aj.Prooem., Arg.Ar. Ach. tit., etc.4 speech,αἱ δικανικαὶ καὶ δημηγορικαὶ ὑ. Theon Prog.1
; = ἐπίδειξις 1.3, ἀρξαμένων (v.l. -ῳ)τῆς ὑ. LXX 4 Ma.1.12
; ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὰς ὅλην πληρούσας ὑ. providing matter for a whole speech, Chor.p.34B.b speech or subject of a speech in which the person, occasion, etc. are particularized, opp. θέσις v. 2, Aphth.Prog. 13, cf. Quint.Inst.3.5.7.5 a kind of play or pantomime,μῖμοί τινές εἰσιν ὧν τοὺς μὲν ὑποθέσεις τοὺς δὲ παίγνια καλοῦσιν Plu.2.712e
; μιμολωγοι η υποθησις εικυρα (i. e. μιμολόγοι· ἡ ὑπόθεσις Ἑκυρά), i. e. 'theatrical performance: play, the Hecyra', Ath.Mitt.26.4 (inscr. on lamp, iii B. C.); κλάειν ἤρξαντο πάντες καὶ μετέβαλε τὸ συμπόσιον εἰς σκυθρωπὴν ὑ. into a tragedy, Charito 4.3; so perh. in Luc.Nigr.8; of Aesop's fables,χρῆται [τῇ ἀλώπεκι] ὁ Αἴσωπος διακόνῳ τῶν πλείστων ὑ. Philostr.Im.1.3
.III supposition,ἢ βούλεσθε.. ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ ἄρξωμαι καὶ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ ὑ., περὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ ὑποθέμενος, εἴτε ἕν ἐστιν εἴτε μὴ ἕν, τί χρὴ συμβαίνειν; Pl.Prm. 137b
; αὕτη ἡ ὑ., εἰ ἓν μὴ ἔστιν ib. 160b; χρὴ.. μὴ μόνον εἰ ἔστιν ἕκαστον ὑποτιθέμενον σκοπεῖν τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἐκ τῆς ὑ., ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰ μὴ ἔστι τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὑποτίθεσθαι ib. 135e, cf. 136a; [σκοπεῖν] τί ἐφ' ἑκατέρας τῆς ὑ. συμβήσεται ib. 136b;εἰ ὀρθὴ ἡ ὑ. ἦν, τὸ ψυχὴν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι Id.Phd. 94b
, cf. 92d, Sph. 244c;πρὸς μὲν τὴν ὑ. ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, ὅλως δ' οὐκ ὀρθῶς Arist. Metaph. 1082b32
; ἐξ ὑποθέσεως σκοπεῖσθαι examine by starting from an assumption, of reasoning by analysis in geometry, Pl.Men. 86e; τῶν τὴν τέχνην ζητεύντων ἐξ ὑποθέσιος λόγων arguments seeking to derive the (medical) art from an assumption, Hp.VM13; ὑ. αὐτοὶ αὑτοῖς ὑποθέμενοι τῷ λόγῳ ib.1; ἄγοντες ἐπὶ ὑπόθεσιν τὴν τέχνην ib. 15;χρῆσιν ἀρετῆς τελείαν, καὶ ταύτην οὐκ ἐξ ὑ. ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς· λέγω δ' ἐξ ὑ. τἀναγκαῖα, οἷον.. τιμωρίαι καὶ κολάσεις.. τὸ καλῶς ἀναγκαίως ἔχουσι Arist.Pol. 1332810
; ἡ πολιτεία ἡ ἐξ ὑ. ( = ἡ δοθεῖσα ) the constitution based on a presupposition, ib. 1288b28; of currency, ἓν δή τι δεῖ εἶναι, τοῦτο δ' ἐξ ὑ.· διὸ νόμισμα καλεῖται according to a presupposed convention, Id.EN 1133b21 (cf. a29-31, APr. 41a40); of reductio ad impossibile,ἢ δεικτικῶς ἢ ἐξ ὑ. τοῦ δ' ἐξ ὑ. μέρος τὸ διὰ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου Id.APr. 40b25
-6, cf. 41a25;δυνατοῦ δεξάμενον ὑπόθεσιν ἐπ' ἀδύνατον ἀπαχθῆναι Arr.Epict.1.7.25
, cf. Procl. in Euc.pp.76,252 F.; καθ' ὑπόθεσιν by way of supposition, 'let us suppose', Phld.Rh. 1.95 S., Sign.12, Cleom.1.7.IV = τὸ ὑποκείμενον (cf.ὑπόκειμαι 11.8
), the presupposition of an action, that which has been settled before it begins,περὶ τοῦ τέλους οὐθεὶς βουλεύεται, ἀλλὰ τοῦτ' ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ καὶ ὑ. Arist.EE 1227a8
, cf. b30;τῶν πράξεων τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ὑ. ἀληθεῖς καὶ δικαίας εἶναι προσήκει D.2.10
; of a thing, that without which it cannot exist or be what it is, its essence, αὕτη (sc. τὸ στέλεχος)οἷον ὑ. καὶ φύσις δένδρων Thphr.HP4.13.4
(cf. οὐσία καὶ φύσις τοῦ δένδρου ibid.);ἐπὶ τοῖς χυμοῖς μόνοις σηπομένοις ἔχοντος τὴν ὑ. ὅλου τοῦ νοσήματος, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πυρετώδους ὄντος Gal.18(2).299
.2 in the syllogism, the preliminary statements of fact (whether proved or not) from which inference starts, i. e. the premisses ([etym.] προτάσεις) , τῶν ἀποδείξεων αἱ ὑ., equivalent to ἀρχαί, Arist.Metaph. 1013a16;αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἱ λεγόμεναι ὑ. Id.APo. 81b15
; ὅσα δέδεικται δι' ἐκείνων ὑποθέσεις ποιησάμενοι taking as premisses (here) what has been proved in those other works, Gal.6.7, cf. 25,224; ἴστω.. τῆς ὑγιεινῆς πραγματείας ἀνατρέπων τὴν ὑ. ib.17;ὑπόθεσιν, αἴτησιν οὖσαν πράγματος εἰς κατασκευήν τινος S.E.M.3.4
;λαμβάνειν ἀναποδείκτους ὑ. Plu.2.720f
, cf. 721d;ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τὰς ὑ. εἶναι τὰς πρώτας ψευδεῖς, ἢ τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν συμβαινόντων ἀποφάς εις Plb.1.15.9
, cf. 11.b assumption of existence of any one of the fundamental objects of a particular science,ὁ ὁρισμὸς θέσις μέν ἐστι.. ὑ. δ' οὐκ ἔστι· τὸ γὰρ τί ἐστι μονὰς καὶ τὸ εἶναι μονάδα οὐ ταὐτόν Arist.APo. 72a23
;ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα ἀρχή, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς αἱ ὑ. Id.EN 1151a17
.3 starting-point,ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ὑ. λαβεῖν τὸν λόγον τὴν εἰς ἑκάτερον μέρος ὁρμήν Iamb.VP27.130
; beginning, τὰς μὲν ἐλπίδας οὐ τελειοῖ (sc. ὁ ὄνειρος) , τὰς δὲ ὑ. τῶν πραγμάτων ταῖς περιοχαῖς ὁμοίας ποιεῖ (referring to a birth of twins which died), Artem.4.47.4 raw material,τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑ. εὐφυᾶ πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν γυμναστικῆς.. ἀμείνω ἀποφαίνειν Luc.Hist. Conscr.35
;οἵαν ὕλην καὶ ὑ. φεύγεις·.. μένε οὖν μέχρι ἐξοικειώσῃς σαυτῷ καὶ ταῦτα M.Ant.10.31
.V mortgage, Thphr.Fr.97.1 (pl.).2 thing placed under, base, τὰς ὑ. (signf. 111)ποιούμενος οὐκ ἀρχὰς ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι ὑ., οἷον ἐπιβάσεις τε καὶ ὁρμάς Pl.R. 511b
, cf. Arr.Epict.1.7.22; in D.2.10 (v. supr. IV. 1) the ἀρχαί and ὑποθέσεις (i. e. basic principles) of actions are compared to the foundations ([etym.] τὰ κάτωθεν) of a house or a ship;Τριπτόλεμος.. τὰς πρώτας ὑ. βαλόμενος τῇ πόλει Lib.Or.11.52
.Greek-English dictionary (Αγγλικά Ελληνικά-λεξικό) > ὑπόθεσις
-
32 nog
1 [tot op dit ogenblik] still, so far2 [voortdurend] still3 [+ vergrotende trap] even, still4 [van nu af] from now (on), more♦voorbeelden:1 is er nog thee? • is there any tea left?ze is nog jong • she's still youngniemand heeft dit nog geprobeerd • no one has tried this (as) yetik hoor het hem nog zeggen • I can (still) hear him saying itik heb nog maar één hoofdstuk gelezen • I've only read one chapter (so far/as yet)zelfs nu nog • even nowtot nog toe • so far, up to nownog geen veertig • on the better side of forty3 nog groter • even larger, larger still5 wil je nog thee? • (would you like some) more tea?nog één woord en ik schiet • one more word and I'll shoot (you)neem er nog eentje! • have another (one)!¶ ga jij nog naar dat feest? • are you (still) going to that party?ik heb hem nog diezelfde dag gezien • I saw him that very/same daykom je nog? • are you coming (or not)?ik zag hem vorige week nog • I saw him only last weekverder nog iets? • anything else?het is praktisch, en bovendien nog mooi ook • it's practical and what's more, it's beautifulze zijn er nog maar net • they've only just arrivednog maar een kind • a mere childdat wil nog niet zeggen dat • that is not to say thatze ging nog mee ook • she went/came along too!ik was nog wel bang dat je niet zou komen • and me being afraid you wouldn't turn upal is hij nog zo rijk … • no matter how rich he may be …ik heb hem nog zó gewaarschuwd • I warned him sonog geen maand geleden • less than a month agowat dan nog? • so what? -
33 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.■ 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.■ 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-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.■ 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
- 1
- 2
См. также в других словарях:
Critique of Practical Reason — Cover of 1898 English edition of the Critique of Practical Reason … Wikipedia
Leukoencephalopathy with vanishing white matter — Classification and external resources OMIM 603896 Leukoencephalopathy with vanishing white matter (VWM disease) is an autosomal recessive neurological disease. The cause of the disease are mutations in any of the 5 genes encoding subunits of the… … Wikipedia
No Laughing Matter (Garfield and Friends) — Infobox Television episode Title = No Laughing Matter Series = Garfield and Friends Caption = Season = 2 Episode = 74 Airdate = October 21, 1989 Production = US025 B Writer = Mark Evanier Sharman DiVono Director = Tom Ray Mitch Schauer Marija… … Wikipedia
ZIONISM — This article is arranged according to the following outline: the word and its meaning forerunners ḤIBBAT ZION ROOTS OF ḤIBBAT ZION background to the emergence of the movement the beginnings of the movement PINSKER S AUTOEMANCIPATION settlement… … Encyclopedia of Judaism
publishing, history of — Introduction an account of the selection, preparation, and marketing of printed matter from its origins in ancient times to the present. The activity has grown from small beginnings into a vast and complex industry responsible for the… … Universalium
property law — Introduction principles, policies, and rules by which disputes over property are to be resolved and by which property transactions may be structured. What distinguishes property law from other kinds of law is that property law deals with… … Universalium
Fathers of the Church — • The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight. 2006. Fathers of the Church … Catholic encyclopedia
mechanics — /meuh kan iks/, n. 1. (used with a sing. v.) the branch of physics that deals with the action of forces on bodies and with motion, comprised of kinetics, statics, and kinematics. 2. (used with a sing. v.) the theoretical and practical application … Universalium
Science (Philosophies of) — Philosophies of science Mach, Duhem, Bachelard Babette E.Babich THE TRADITION OF CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE If the philosophy of science is not typically represented as a ‘continental’ discipline it is nevertheless historically rooted in… … History of philosophy
LAW AND MORALITY — In the Bible In the Pentateuch, legal and moral norms are not distinguished by any definitional criteria. The manner of presentation of both is via revelation – moral norms are not presented as wisdom but rather as prophetic revelation. Thus the… … Encyclopedia of Judaism
strategy — /strat i jee/, n., pl. strategies. 1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations. 2. the use or an instance of using this science or art. 3.… … Universalium