Nachdruck von Speaking Minds

Book Cover; Speaking Minds: Interviews with Twenty Eminent Cognitive Scientists (Princeton Legacy Library), Paperback July 2014

Book Cover: Nachdruck von Speaking Minds: Interviews with Twenty Eminent Cognitive Scientists (Princeton Legacy Library), Paperback July 2014

Nachdruck von Speaking Minds: Eigenartig und erstaunlich! Ich habe gar nichts davon gewusst, bis ich (eher zufällig) im Kroatien-Urlaub (Sommer 2014) durch einen Tweet  von einem Nachdruck von Speaking Minds: Interviews with 20 Eminent Cognitive Scientists in der Princeton Legacy Library durch Princeton University Press erfahren habe.

The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Nachdruck von Speaking Mind: Bessere Kritiken als Erstausgabe

Interessant ist, dass dieser Nachdruck weit mehr Beachtung und auch weit bessere Kritiken bekommen hat, als die damalige Ersterscheinung vor 20 Jahren. (Siehe z.B. die drei sehr positiven Reviews in Meiner Meinung hängt das einerseits damit zusammen, dass es viele Interviews von Persönlichkeiten enthält, die inzwischen leider verstorben sind. Andererseits aber denke ich, dass die philosophische Meta-Perspektive, die wir bei den Interviews zu diesem Buch eingenommen haben, nun nach einem gewissen Zeitabstand, von ihrem damaligen diskursiven Streitcharakter (Künstliche Intelligenz: Ja oder Nein) bereinigt sind. Die Interviews geben nicht nur einen Einblick in das Theoriegebäude der interviewten KognitionswissenschaftlerInnen, sondern sind in ihrer Gesamtheit ein wichtiges Zeitdokument der damaligen (und auch heute noch aktuellen) Diskussion.

This book, though nearly twenty years old, remains of considerable value to anyone studying the philosophy of mind.

As a result of this book, I have a much better appreciation for cognitive scientists in general and AI researchers specifically. I think this should be on the short list for any aspiring AI researcher.

It was an thoroughly interesting read. The book touches on everything cog sci.

Interviewt wurden in Speaking Mind:

  1. Patricia Smith Churchland: Take It Apart and See How It Runs
  2. Paul M. Churchland: Neural Networks and Commonsense
  3. Aaron V Cicourel: Cognition and Cultural Belief
  4. Daniell C. Dennett: In Defense of AI
  5. Hubert L. Dreyfus: Cognitivism Abondened
  6. Jerry A Fodor: The Folly of Simulation
  7. John Haugeland: Farewell to GOFAI?
  8. George Lakoff: Embodied Minds and Meanings
  9. James L. McClelland: Toward a Pragmatic Connectionism
  10. Allen Newell: The Serial Imperative
  11. Stephen E. Palmer: Gestalt Psychology Redux
  12. Hilary Putnam: Against the New Associationism
  13. David E. Rumelhart: From Seaching to Seeing
  14. John R. Searle: Ontology Is the Question
  15. Terrence J. Sejnowski: The Hardware Really Matters
  16. Herbert A. Simon: Technology Is Not the Problem
  17. Joseph Weizenbaum: The Myth of the Last Metaphor
  18. Robert Wilensky: Why Play the Philosophy Game?
  19. Terry A. Winograd: Computers and Social Values
  20. Lofti A. Zadeh: The Albatross of Classical Logic

Siehe auch meinen früheren Weblog-Eintrag zur Publikation von 1995.

This entry was posted in Publikation and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Nachdruck von Speaking Minds

  1. Peter, I’ll be interested in looking at the book when the copy I ordered comes. While waiting to see what happens with the PURPLSOC conference in July, I thought I’d look around for conversation.

    What do you think of the idea of being able to distinguish between mental and natural frameworks by locating their separate units of organization? For example, one might distinguish between “a home” as the domain and environmental niche of a family (identifying a material unit of organization that way) and “our ideas of home” as a mental world of inter-related thoughts about homes (identified by their organization in our thoughts).

    What I’ve found is that making the distinction that way is almost universally accepted and useful in informal settings, but most often unwelcome in intellectual communities, where one or another common paradigm of abstract reasoning is expected as the basis for discussion, rather than the combination of natural language and observation. Any thoughts about that?

    • Peter Baumgartner says:

      Jessie, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Unfortunately I am still not involved in your mind frame – as I have seen it at your interesting but very complex website and cannot therefore not offer productive commentaries. Please give me time to understand more of your background. The PURPLSOC conference will be an excellent occasion to get to know each other and to understand mutually the mental framework our ideas are based on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Captcha loading...