Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-28T19:59:49.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for LoTH: Slim pickings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

David Pereplyotchik Open the ORCID record for David Pereplyotchik [Opens in a new window]
David Pereplyotchik*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA dpereply@kent.edu https://kentstate.academia.edu/DavidPereplyotchik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, I contend that a representative sample of the arguments in the target article miss the mark. In particular, the interface problem provides no warrant for positing similarities between representational formats, and the evidence from neurocognitive, animal, and behavioral studies is inconclusive at best. Finally, I raise doubts about whether the authors' central hypothesis is falsifiable.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e286
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arbib, M. A. (Ed.). (2003). The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. J. (2013). The human brain processes syntax in the absence of conscious awareness. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(19), 8528–8533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfill, S., & Sinigaglia, C. (2014). Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1), 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, W. (2021). The skill of translating thought into action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 12, 547–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherstone, C. R., Morrison, C. M., Waterman, M. G., & MacGregor, L. J. (2013). Semantics, syntax or neither? A case for resolution in the interpretation of N500 and P600 responses to harmonic incongruities. PLoS ONE, 8(11), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C. (2020). Performance vs. competence in human–machine comparisons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(43), 26562–26571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mylopoulos, M., & Pacherie, E. (2017). Intentions and motor representations: The interface challenge. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereplyotchik, D. (2017). Psychosyntax: The nature of grammar and its place in the mind. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellam, T., Yadlowsky, S., Wei, J., Saphra, N., D'Amour, A., Linzen, T., … Pavlick, E. (2022). The MultiBERTs: BERT reproductions for robustness analysis, ICLR. [arXiv]. arXiv: arXiv:2106.16163.Google Scholar
van Gaal, S., Naccache, L., Meuwese, J. D. I., van Loon, A. A. M., Leighton, A. H., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2014). Can the meaning of multiple words be integrated unconsciously? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 369, 20130212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed