“Diacronia” bibliometric database (BDD)

Between Chomsky and BRUTUS. Can Machines be Creative?

Publication: Analele Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași. Secțiunea IIIe. Lingvistică, LVII, Section Perspective teoretice actuale, p. 107-121
Publisher:Editura Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”
Abstract:Chomsky believed that lying beneath the astonishing linguistic abilities of humans is a universal grammar, represented by deep generative structures that nobody really knows how they got to be there, i.e. in their own modules within the brain and developing, largely autonomously, from human cognition. Then came Gerald Edelman, a neuroscientist, who believed that meaning does not reside in one site of the human brain, “but is typically a dynamic and variable pattern of connections over many elements”(Turner); our subjective experience of thought and sensation arise from the simultaneous activation of many different overlapping systems of neurons, called maps, which influence and reinforce one another. And then came Mark Turner, who uses the second author, Edelman, to tell Chomsky that he was simply wrong, and that it is not grammar which inhabits the deepest region of the mind’s linguistic capacities, but parable and the ability to tell stories.
Key words:cognitive science, Herbert Simon, Chomsky, creativity, computers
Language: English

Citations to this publication: 0

References in this publication: 1

2Steven PinkerHow the Mind WorksW.W. Norton / Penguin1997, 1999, 2009

The citations/references list is based on indexed publications only, and may therefore be incomplete.
For any and all inquiries related to the database, please contact us at [Please enable javascript to view.].