Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38746919›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024

A category theory perspective on the Language of Thought: LoT is universal.

Steven Phillips

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Steven PhillipsMathematical Neuroscience Group, Human Informatics and Interaction Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Language of Thought (LoT) hypothesis proposes that some collections of mental states and processes are symbol systems to explain language-like systematic properties of thought. Recent proponents of this hypothesis point to additional LoT-like properties in non-linguistic domains to claim that LoT remains the "best game in town" in terms of explanatory coverage. Nonetheless, LoT assumes but does not explain why/how symbolic representations connect to other (non-symbolic) formats. The perspective presented here is supposed to bridge this gap as a duality in a category theoretical sense: (perceptual) data are projected onto a base (conceptual) space in one direction, and in the opposite direction, these data are referenced by that space. Accordingly, perception is dual to conception. These constructions follow from a

Indexed as

categorycategory theoryLanguage of Thoughtproductsubobjecttopostopos theory

Identifiers

PMID38746919
PMCPMC11091282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.