How to build a specific code

1982 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-101
Author(s):  
Luc Vanmalderen ◽  
Claude M. Bégué
Keyword(s):  
Design Method ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Stages Of Development ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Graphic Symbol

This paper describes an exercise in designing a 'specific' graphic code. Five stages of development are described from a simple numeric code to a more complex graphic symbol system. The authors conclude that a purist approach to symbol systems must give way to a pragmatic design method with priority given to the needs and background of the users.

Transparency and Recall of Symbols among Intellectually Handicapped Adults

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Mizuko ◽  
Joe Reichle
Keyword(s):  
Communication System ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Speech Impairments ◽  
Parts Of Speech ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Graphic Symbol ◽  
System Selection ◽  
Picture Communication

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the transparency and recall of symbols representing three parts of speech (nouns, verbs, descriptors) from three different graphic symbol systems (Blissymbols, Picture Communication System, and Picsyms) among adults with intellectual handicaps. Results suggested that the Picture Communication System (PCS) and Picsyms were more transparent and easier to learn than Blissymbols. Subjects correctly identified significantly fewer Blissymbols representing nouns than either PCS or Picsyms representing nouns. In early stages of recall for nouns, PCS and Picsyms were significantly easier to recall than Blissymbols. Implications of the data for symbol system selection use for persons with severe speech impairments are discussed.

Transparency of Three Communication Symbol Systems

1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn R. Musselwhite ◽  
Dennis M. Ruscello
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Forced Choice ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Identification Task ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Developmental Progression ◽  
Total Test

This investigation studied the transparency or guessability of communication symbols from three widely used systems—Blissymbols, Picsyms, and Rebus. Symbol transparency was assessed across four age groups through a forced-choice identification task which contained Word, Phrase, and Sentence subtests. Significant differences were found in both Word subtest and Total test scores for the variables of symbol system and chronological age. Subjects across all age groups performed similarly in response to the Picsyms and Rebus symbol items but significantly more poorly when identifying Blissymbols. In addition, there appeared to be a developmental progression for the Picsym and Rebus symbol tests, but the same trend did not emerge for the Blissymbol test. The feature of symbol transparency, as measured through a forced-choice identification task, discriminated among symbol systems. Significantly fewer symbols from the Bliss system were found to be transparent when compared with Picsym and Rebus systems.

Symbol Grounding Problem

2011 ◽  
pp. 1543-1548
Author(s):  
Angelo Loula ◽  
João Queiroz
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Symbol Grounding ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Symbol Grounding Problem ◽  
The World ◽  
Symbolic Systems ◽  
Grounding Problem ◽  
Intelligent Action ◽  
Formal Rules

The topic of representation acquisition, manipulation and use has been a major trend in Artificial Intelligence since its beginning and persists as an important matter in current research. Particularly, due to initial focus on development of symbolic systems, this topic is usually related to research in symbol grounding by artificial intelligent systems. Symbolic systems, as proposed by Newell & Simon (1976), are characterized as a highlevel cognition system in which symbols are seen as “[lying] at the root of intelligent action” (Newell and Simon, 1976, p.83). Moreover, they stated the Physical Symbol Systems Hypothesis (PSSH), making the strong claim that “a physical symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means for general intelligent action” (p.87). This hypothesis, therefore, sets equivalence between symbol systems and intelligent action, in such a way that every intelligent action would be originated in a symbol system and every symbol system is capable of intelligent action. The symbol system described by Newell and Simon (1976) is seen as a computer program capable of manipulating entities called symbols, ‘physical patterns’ combined in expressions, which can be created, modified or destroyed by syntactic processes. Two main capabilities of symbol systems were said to provide the system with the properties of closure and completeness, and so the system itself could be built upon symbols alone (Newell & Simon, 1976). These capabilities were designation – expressions designate objects – and interpretation – expressions could be processed by the system. The question was, and much of the criticism about symbol systems came from it, how these systems, built upon and manipulating just symbols, could designate something outside its domain. Symbol systems lack ‘intentionality’, stated John Searle (1980), in an important essay in which he described a widely known mental experiment (Gedankenexperiment), the ‘Chinese Room Argument’. In this experiment, Searle places himself in a room where he is given correlation rules that permits him to determine answers in Chinese to question also in Chinese given to him, although Searle as the interpreter knows no Chinese. To an outside observer (who understands Chinese), the man in this room understands Chinese quite well, even though he is actually manipulating non-interpreted symbols using formal rules. For an outside observer the symbols in the questions and answers do represent something, but for the man in the room the symbols lack intentionality. The man in the room acts like a symbol system, which relies only in symbolic structures manipulation by formal rules. For such systems, the manipulated tokens are not about anything, and so they cannot even be regarded as representations. The only intentionality that can be attributed to these symbols belongs to who ever uses the system, sending inputs that represent something to them and interpreting the output that comes out of the system. (Searle, 1980) Therefore, intentionality is the important feature missing in symbol systems. The concept of intentionality is of aboutness, a “feature of certain mental states by which they are directed at or about objects and states of affairs in the world” (Searle, 1980), as a thought being about a certain place.1 Searle (1980) points out that a ‘program’ itself can not achieve intentionality, because programs involve formal relations and intentionality depends on causal relations. Along these lines, Searle leaves a possibility to overcome the limitations of mere programs: ‘machines’ – physical systems causally connected to the world and having ‘causal internal powers’ – could reproduce the necessary causality, an approach in the same direction of situated and embodied cognitive science and robotics. It is important to notice that these ‘machines’ should not be just robots controlled by a symbol system as described before. If the input does not come from a keyboard and output goes to a monitor, but rather came in from a video camera and then out to motors, it would not make a difference since the symbol system is not aware of this change. And still in this case, the robot would not have intentional states (Searle 1980). Symbol systems should not depend on formal rules only, if symbols are to represent something to the system. This issue brought in another question, how symbols could be connected to what they represent, or, as stated by Harnad (1990) defining the Symbol Grounding Problem: “How can the semantic interpretation of a formal symbol system be made intrinsic to the system, rather than just parasitic on the meanings in our heads? How can the meanings of the meaningless symbol tokens, manipulated solely on the basis of their (arbitrary) shapes, be grounded in anything but other meaningless symbols?” The Symbol Grounding Problem, therefore, reinforces two important matters. First that symbols do not represent anything to a system, at least not what they were said to ‘designate’. Only someone operating the system could recognize those symbols as referring to entities outside the system. Second, the symbol system cannot hold its closure in relating symbols only with other symbols; something else should be necessary to establish a connection between symbols and what they represent. An analogy made by Harnad (1990) is with someone who knows no Chinese but tries to learn Chinese from a Chinese/Chinese dictionary. Since terms are defined by using other terms and none of them is known before, the person is kept in a ‘dictionary-goround’ without ever understanding those symbols. The great challenge for Artificial Intelligence researchers then is to connect symbols to what they represent, and also to identify the consequences that the implementation of such connection would make to a symbol system, e.g. much of the descriptions of symbols by means of other symbols would be unnecessary when descriptions through grounding are available. It is important to notice that the grounding process is not just about giving sensors to an artificial system so it would be able to ‘see’ the world, since it ‘trivializes’ the symbol grounding problem and ignores the important issue about how the connection between symbols and objects are established (Harnad, 1990).

scholarly journals Whither structured representation?

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-627
Author(s):  
Arthur B. Markman ◽  
Eric Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
System View ◽  
Perceptual Representations ◽  
Perceptual Symbol Systems ◽  
Structured Representation

The perceptual symbol system view assumes that perceptual representations have a role-argument structure. A role-argument structure is often incorporated into amodal symbol systems in order to explain conceptual functions like abstraction and rule use. The power of perceptual symbol systems to support conceptual functions is likewise rooted in its use of structure. On Barsalou's account, this capacity to use structure (in the form of frames) must be innate.

How Can a Symbol System Come into Being?

Dialogue ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
David Lumsden
Keyword(s):  
Symbol System ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
The Way

AbstractOne holistic thesis about symbols is that a symbol cannot exist singly, but only as apart of a symbol system. There is also the plausible view that symbol systems emerge gradually in an individual, in a group, and in a species. The problem is that symbol holism makes it hard to see how a symbol system can emerge gradually, at least if we are considering the emergence of a first symbol system. The only way it seems possible is if being a symbol can be a matter of degree, which is initially problematic. This article explains how being a cognitive symbol can be a matter of degree after all. The contrary intuition arises from the way a process of interpretation forces an all-or-nothing character on symbols, leaving room for underlying material to realize symbols to different degrees in a way that Daniel Dennett's work can help illuminate. Holism applies to symbols as interpreted, while gradualism applies to how the underlying material realizes symbols.

Rebus Symbol Communication Training with a Severely Handicapped Preschool Child

1988 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula M. Pecyna
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Preschool Child ◽  
Communication Training ◽  
Developmental Level ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
New Words ◽  
Graphic Symbol ◽  
Severely Handicapped ◽  
Symbol Use

This case study describes the procedures used with and the results obtained for a preschool child with Down's syndrome who received communication training which incorporated Rebus symbols (a graphic symbol system). Training focused on comprehension and expressive use of Rebus symbols representing five new words and generalization of symbol use to the classroom. Results showed significant increases in the child's comprehension and expression Scores and in generalized symbol use. Further, the results indicated that symbol training may have facilitated development of the child's verbal expressive skills and that overall developmental level and level of communicative functioning are important factors to consider when planning a graphic symbol communication training program for a child.

A Kabbalistic Perspective on Gender-Specific Commandments: on the Interplay of Symbols and Society

AJS Review ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talya Fishman
Keyword(s):  
Symbol System ◽  
Jewish Culture ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Cultural Mores ◽  
Mystical Theology ◽  
Ritual Behavior ◽  
Gender Specific

Unlike other symbol systems, whose precise influence on cultural mores is hard to pinpoint, Kabbalah's impact on mainstream Jewish culture can be traced, at least in the realm of practice, for this mystical theology and symbol system is rooted in law and expressed through ritual behavior.

Effects of Temporal Sequencing and Auditory Discrimination on Children's Memory Patterns for Tones, Numbers, and Nonsense Words

2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce Eastlund Gromko ◽  
Dee Hansen ◽  
Anne Halloran Tortora ◽  
Daniel Higgins ◽  
Eric Boccia
Keyword(s):  
Magnet School ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Intraclass Correlations ◽  
Temporal Sequencing ◽  
Aural Discrimination ◽  
Children's Memory ◽  
Performance Profiles ◽  
Basic Level

The purpose of this study was to determine whether children's recall of tones, numbers, and words was supported by a common temporal sequencing mechanism; whether children's patterns of memory for tones, numbers, and nonsense words were the same despite differences in symbol systems; and whether children's recall of tones, numbers, and nonsense words was related to their aural discrimination ability. Participants ( N = 74) were children enrolled in grades 1 through 3, drawn from an urban magnet school. On the basis of U-shaped performance profiles, the authors concluded that a common temporal sequencing mechanism may undergird children's recall of tones and nonsense words; thus, these domains may be linked at some basic level. Based on intraclass correlations that compared children's patterns of memory for tones, numbers, and nonsense words, the authors found that children's memory for information varied by symbol system and according to the characteristics of patterns within each symbol system. Finally, they found that aural discrimination skill contributed to children's recall despite differences in symbol systems.

Transcending the rational symbol system

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Heylighen
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Symbol System ◽  
Evolutionary Transition ◽  
Subjective Experiences ◽  
Human Capabilities ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
System P ◽  
Global Brain ◽  
Logical Rules

Symbols support the uniquely human capabilities of language, culture, and thinking. Therefore, cognitive scientists have tried to explain intelligence as founded on Rational Symbol Systems (RSS). RSS use syntactical and logical rules to combine discrete symbols into meaningful expressions and inferences. However, these symbols fail to capture continuous, felt experience. The proposed solution is to ground symbols in situated interactions and subsymbolic networks of associations. Historically, different approaches have attempted to overcome the shortcomings of RSS. These include science, by formalizing and operationalizing symbols; philosophy, by critically analyzing the relation between symbols and reality; art, by evoking subjective experiences; and spirituality, by expanding consciousness. Information technologies, such as artificial intelligence, neural networks, simulations and virtual reality, make it possible to integrate their results. That would allow externalizing and controlling creativity and intuition, thus inaugurating an evolutionary transition to a supra-human level of intelligence, the “Global Brain”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document