/Users/andrea/_magisterarbeit/korpus/clean/trainkorpus/1/file8.html NN ----------------------------------------- : Structure NN Mapping NN vs NP . SENT High JJ level NN Perception NN . SENT The DT Mistaken JJ Fight NN Over IN The DT Explanation NN of IN Analogy NN Clayton NP T NN . SENT Morrison NP and CC Eric NP Dietrich NP Philosophy NN And CC Computers NNS Cognitive JJ Science NP PACCS NP State NP University NP of IN New NP York NP Binghamton NP , , NY NP 13902 CD 6000 CD e SYM mail NN . SENT clayton NP using VVG the DT domain NN cs NP . SENT umass NN . SENT edu NN PostScript NN version NN of IN this DT paper NN . SENT For IN the DT original JJ High NP level NN Perception NN paper NN by IN Chalmers NP , , French NP Hofstadter NP which WDT the DT following VVG paper NN comments NNS on IN , , you PP can MD go VV to TO Chalmer's NP Old NP AI VVZ Papers NP html NN , , or CC grab VV the DT PostScript NN version NN . SENT Abstract JJ There EX is VBZ currently RB a DT competition NN between IN two CD theories NNS that WDT propose VVP to TO explain VV the DT cognitive JJ phenomenon NN of IN analogy NN . SENT Dedre NP Gentner's NP Structure NN Mapping NN Theory NN and CC Douglas NP Hofstadter's NP theory NN of IN Analogy NN as IN High NP level NN Perception NN . SENT We PP argue VVP that IN the DT competition NN between IN the DT two CD theories NNS is VBZ ill RB founded VVN because IN they PP are VBP after IN two CD different JJ aspects NNS of IN analogy NN . SENT structure NN mapping NN seeks VVZ a DT horizontal JJ view NN of IN analogy NN where WRB the DT phenomena NNS is VBZ examined VVN at IN the DT level NN of IN already RB existing VVG psychological JJ representations NNS , , and CC where WRB the DT task NN is VBZ to TO identify VV what WP processes NNS are VBP common JJ to TO all RB or CC most JJS analogy NN function NN . SENT High JJ level NN Perception NN , , on IN the DT other JJ hand NN , , seeks VVZ a DT vertical JJ view NN of IN analogy NN in IN which WDT the DT goal NN is VBZ to TO explain VV the DT processes NNS that WDT make VVP up RP the DT construction NN of IN representations NNS . SENT An DT integrated JJ theory NN of IN analogy NN should MD encompass VV both DT horizontal JJ and CC vertical JJ views NNS . SENT Introduction NN In IN this DT paper NN , , we PP argue VVP that IN there EX is VBZ a DT mistaken JJ competition NN between IN two CD theories NNS of IN analogy NN . SENT Dedre NP Gentner's NP structure NN mapping NN theory NN SMT NP , , and CC Douglas NP Hofstadter's NP theory NN of IN analogy NN as IN high JJ level NN perception NN HLP NP . SENT Proponents NNS of IN either DT theory NN have VHP developed VVN arguments NNS claiming VVG that IN their PP$ theory NN captures VVZ more RBR of IN analogy NN than IN the DT other JJ . SENT The DT task NN of IN this DT paper NN is VBZ to TO separate VV these DT combatants NNS and CC show VVP that IN their PP$ theories NNS are VBP after IN explanations NNS of IN different JJ aspects NNS of IN analogy NN phenomena NNS , , not RB necessarily RB pitted VVN against IN one CD another DT . SENT Summary NN Of IN The DT Positions NNS Gentner's NP SMT NP Gentner NP , , 1980 CD , , 1983 CD , , 1989 CD describes VVZ analogy NN as IN a DT product NN of IN structure NN mapping NN . SENT A DT basic JJ assumption NN of IN SMT NP is VBZ that IN our PP$ psychological JJ concepts NNS have VHP a DT structure NN to TO them PP . SENT According VVG to TO Gentner NP , , these DT structures NNS are VBP the DT psychological JJ representations NNS of IN relations NNS between IN perceptual JJ and CC conceptual JJ objects NNS . SENT According VVG to TO SMT NP , , an DT analogy NN , , the DT ability NN to TO recognize VV that IN one CD thing NN is VBZ like IN another DT , , is VBZ a DT mapping NN of IN one CD structure NN onto IN another DT according VVG to TO a DT similarity NN comparison NN based VVN on IN the DT relations NNS represented VVN in IN the DT concept NN structures NNS . SENT Gentner NP and CC others NNS have VHP set VVN out RP to TO empirically RB test VV the DT explanatory JJ power NN of IN this DT conception NN with IN respect NN to TO human JJ analogical JJ production NN Gentner NP , , Falkenhainer NP Skorstad NP , , 1987 CD . SENT Gentner NP Imai NP , , 1992 CD . SENT Gentner NP Landers NP , , 1985 CD . SENT Gentner NP Rattermann NP , , 1991 CD . SENT Gentner NP , , Rattermann NP Forbus NP , , 1993 CD . SENT Kotovsky NP Gentner NP , , 1990 CD . SENT SMT NP has VHZ two CD key JJ strengths NNS . SENT 1 CD it PP makes VVZ a DT clean JJ distinction NN between IN analogies NNS and CC other JJ types NNS of IN similarity NN comparisons NNS abstraction NN , , anomaly NN , , literal JJ similarity NN , , and CC mere JJ appearance NN , , both CC in IN theory NN and CC as RB evidenced VVN in IN psychological JJ examination NN . SENT and CC 2 CD it PP is VBZ generally RB applicable JJ rather RB than IN requiring VVG a DT specific JJ algorithm NN for IN each DT potential JJ analogy NN , , or CC even RB a DT collection NN of IN algorithms NNS for IN each DT domain NN of IN comparison NN , , the DT generalized VVN structure NN of IN knowledge NN representation NN and CC the DT structure NN mapping NN algorithm NN makes VVZ it PP possible JJ for IN any DT properly RB constructed VVN knowledge NN structure NN to TO be VB compared VVN and CC considered VVN for IN structure NN mapping NN . SENT The DT Structure NN Mapping NN Engine NP SME NP Falkenhainer NP , , Forbus NP Gentner NP , , 1986 CD , , 1989 CD . SENT Gentner NP , , Falkenhainer NP Skorstad NP , , 1987 CD is VBZ a DT computer NN model NN intended VVN to TO simulate VV the DT structure NN mapping NN process NN of IN Gentner's NP theory NN . SENT When WRB given VVN a DT properly RB constructed VVN representation NN , , SME NP can MD find VV a DT mapping NN between IN the DT appropriate JJ relations NNS for IN each DT representation NN . SENT A DT system NN of IN analogical JJ retrieval NN , , called VVD MAC NN FAC NP Gentner NP , , 1989 CD . SENT Gentner NP Forbus NP , , 1991 CD . SENT Gentner NP , , Ratterman NP Forbus NP , , 1993 CD , , provides VVZ a DT plausible JJ method NN by IN which WDT a DT huge JJ database NN of IN structured JJ knowledge NN representations NNS may MD be VB searched VVD and CC an DT item NN retrieved VVD from IN it PP with IN little JJ computational JJ strain NN . SENT MAC NN FAC NP includes VVZ SME NP as IN the DT key JJ component NN that WDT performs VVZ the DT structure NN mapping NN . SENT Douglas NP Hofstadter NP and CC several JJ of IN his PP$ graduate NN students NNS Hofstadter NP , , 1984 CD . SENT Hofstadter NP , , Mitchell NP French NP , , 1987 CD . SENT Chalmers NP et NP al NP . SENT , , 1992 CD . SENT Mitchell NP , , 1993 CD . SENT Hofstadter NP et NP al NP . SENT , , 1995 RB propose VV a DT different JJ approach NN to TO the DT explanation NN of IN analogy NN by IN which WDT an DT analogy NN is VBZ conceived VVN of IN as IN the DT product NN of IN a DT more RBR general JJ cognitive JJ function NN called VVD high JJ level NN perception NN . SENT HLP NP is VBZ the DT process NN by IN which WDT an DT organism's JJ representation NN of IN a DT situation NN at IN a DT conceptual JJ level NN is VBZ constructed VVN based VVN on IN an DT interaction NN between IN high JJ level NN concepts NNS and CC low JJ level NN perceptual JJ processes NNS . SENT high JJ level NN concepts NNS influence VVP low JJ level NN perceptual JJ processing NN , , while IN what WP is VBZ perceived VVN at IN a DT low JJ level NN affects VVZ the DT activation NN of IN high JJ level NN concepts NNS as IN a DT representation NN of IN the DT situation NN is VBZ constructed VVN . SENT 1 LS The DT Copycat NN project NN , , designed VVN by IN Hofstadter NP and CC Mitchell NP 1992 CD . SENT Mitchell NP , , 1990 CD , , 1993 CD . SENT Mitchell NP Hofstadter NP , , 1990 CD , , is VBZ a DT model NN of IN analogy NN as IN high JJ level NN perception NN . SENT Copycat NN is VBZ intended VVN to TO embody VV the DT principles NNS of IN high JJ level NN perception NN by IN building NN it's NNS own JJ representation NN of IN an DT analogy NN situation NN in IN a DT simplified VVN letter NN domain NN . SENT In IN order NN to TO really RB get VV at IN HLP NP , , we PP must MD now RB turn VV to TO Hofstadter's NP criticisms NNS of IN Gentner NP , , and CC thus RB the DT confrontation NN between IN structure NN mapping NN and CC high JJ level NN perception NN . SENT The DT Fight NN The DT theory NN of IN high JJ level NN perception NN is VBZ first RB introduced VVN in IN print NN in IN the DT paper NN , , High NP level NN perception NN . SENT representation NN and CC analogy NN , , by IN CFH NP 2 CD Chalmers NP , , et NP al NP . SENT , , 1992 CD . SENT The DT main JJ thesis NN of IN their PP$ paper NN is VBZ that IN HLP NP is VBZ deeply RB interwoven VVN with IN other JJ cognitive JJ processes NNS . SENT They PP argue VVP that IN much RB of IN the DT work NN in RB AI VVP has VHZ attempted VVN to TO model VV conceptual JJ processes NNS independently RB of IN perceptual JJ processes NNS , , but CC that IN this DT approach NN cannot NN lead NN to TO a DT satisfactory JJ understanding NN of IN the DT human JJ mind NN . SENT Therefore RB , , they PP argue VVP , , researchers NNS in RB AI VVP must MD integrate VV perceptual JJ processing NN into IN their PP$ modeling NN of IN cognition NN . SENT As IN an DT example NN of IN high JJ level NN cognition NN that WDT depends VVZ on IN high JJ level NN perception NN and CC vice NN versa RB , , CFH NP take VVP up RP the DT cognitive JJ process NN of IN analogy NN . SENT They PP posit VV that IN , , when WRB people NNS make VVP analogies NNS , , they PP are VBP perceiving VVG some DT aspects NNS of IN the DT structures NNS of IN two CD situations NNS the DT essences NNS of IN those DT situations NNS , , in IN some DT sense NN as IN identical JJ Chalmers NP et CC al NP . SENT , , 1992 CD , , p NN . SENT 193 CD . SENT The DT structures NNS of IN the DT representations NNS of IN these DT situations NNS are VBP , , they PP propose VVP , , the DT product NN of IN high JJ level NN perception NN . SENT Analogical JJ thought NN also RB provides VVZ an DT illustration NN of IN the DT flexible JJ nature NN of IN our PP$ perceptual JJ abilities NNS . SENT For IN instance NN , , making VVG an DT analogy NN requires VVZ highlighting VVG various JJ aspects NNS of IN a DT situation NN , , and CC the DT aspects NNS that WDT are VBP highlighted VVN are VBP often RB not RB the DT most RBS obvious JJ features NNS from IN the DT beginning NN . SENT The DT perception NN of IN the DT situation NN can MD change VV radically RB , , depending VVG on IN the DT analogy NN we PP are VBP making VVG . SENT CFH NNS divide VVP the DT processes NNS involved VVN in IN analogical JJ thought NN into IN two CD basic JJ components NNS . SENT One PP is VBZ situation NN perception NN , , the DT filtering VVG and CC organizing VVG of IN data NNS involved VVN in IN a DT given VVN situation NN according VVG to TO a DT given VVN context NN . SENT And CC the DT other JJ is VBZ mapping VVG , , the DT taking NN of IN the DT representations NNS of IN two CD situations NNS and CC finding VVG appropriate JJ correspondences NNS between IN components NNS of IN one CD representation NN with IN components NNS of IN the DT other JJ to TO produce VV the DT analogy NN match VV up RP . SENT CFH NP claim NN that WDT , , it PP is VBZ by IN no DT means NNS apparent JJ that IN these DT processes NNS are VBP cleanly RB separable JJ . SENT they PP seem VVP to TO interact VV in IN a DT deep JJ way NN Chalmers NP et NP al NP . SENT , , 1992 CD , , p NN . SENT 195 CD . SENT They PP propose VVP that IN because IN perception NN underlies VVZ analogy NN , , we PP are VBP tempted VVN to TO divide VV the DT process NN of IN analogy NN sequentially RB into IN situation NN perception NN , , followed VVN by IN mapping NN as IN Gentner's NP analogy NN architecture NN suggests VVZ . SENT However RB , , analogy NN is VBZ deeply RB involved VVN in IN the DT situation NN perception NN stage NN as IN well RB . SENT perceptions NNS of IN many JJ situations NNS are VBP possible JJ because IN of IN analogical JJ mappings NNS . SENT Thus RB , , CFH NP conclude VVP that DT situation NN perception NN and CC mapping NN processes NNS go VVP hand NN in IN hand NN . SENT For IN these DT reasons NNS , , CFH NP believe VVP that DT perception NN must MD be VB accounted VVN for IN in IN a DT model NN of IN analogical JJ thought NN something NN they PP claim VVP has VHZ not RB been VBN taken VVN into IN account NN by IN current JJ models NNS of IN analogy NN . SENT CFH NP make VVP use NN of IN three CD technical JJ terms NNS in IN characterizing VVG the DT pitfalls NNS of IN separating VVG perception NN from IN high JJ level NN cognition NN . SENT The DT first JJ term NN is VBZ that IN of IN hand NN coding VVG representations NNS . SENT This DT refers VVZ to TO the DT structuring NN of IN representations NNS by IN humans NNS . SENT Hand VV coding VVG becomes VVZ a DT fallacy NN when WRB an DT implementer's NNS representations NNS beg VV all PDT the DT interesting JJ cognitive JJ questions NNS . SENT i NP . SENT e SYM . SENT , , when WRB the DT implementer NN encodes VVZ all PDT the DT information NN needed VVD to TO complete VV the DT task NN e NN . SENT g NN . SENT , , BACON NN 3 CD . SENT The DT second JJ term NN is VBZ rigidity NN , , a DT feature NN of IN representations NNS in IN which WDT they PP are VBP inflexible JJ or CC unable JJ to TO change VV . SENT This DT , , CFH NP claim NN , , may MD be VB a DT result NN of IN hand NN coding VVG representations NNS rather RB than IN having VHG the DT mechanism NN build VV them PP through IN some DT sort NN of IN constructive JJ process NN . SENT The DT third JJ term NN is VBZ 20 CD 20 CD hindsight NN , , which WDT occurs VVZ when WRB a DT researcher NN develops VVZ a DT mechanism NN that WDT relies VVZ on IN hand NN coded VVN concepts NNS rather RB than IN a DT mechanism NN that WDT independently RB arrives VVZ at IN a DT representational JJ structure NN for IN a DT particular JJ concept NN . SENT The DT mechanism NN using VVG the DT hand NN coded VVN representations NNS is VBZ said VVN to TO be VB guilty JJ of IN 20 CD 20 CD hindsight NN . SENT 4 LS CFH NP accuse VVP Gentner's NP model NN of IN analogy NN of IN bypassing VVG the DT process NN of IN perception NN . SENT They PP say VVP that DT Gentner's NP approach NN involves VVZ starting VVG with IN fixed VVN , , hand RB coded VVN representations NNS which WDT are VBP compared VVN and CC a DT mapping NN between IN them PP is VBZ performed VVN . SENT CFH's NP criticisms NNS are VBP focused VVN on IN the DT difficulties NNS that WDT arise VVP out RP of IN the DT rigidity NN of IN SME's NP representations NNS , , the DT foremost JJ of IN which WDT is VBZ the DT inability NN to TO change VV representations NNS as RB needed VVN during IN processing NN . SENT According VVG to TO Gentner's NP model NN , , CFH NP claim NN , , mapping NN is VBZ the DT only JJ process NN involved VVN in IN analogy NN . SENT In IN SME NP , , representations NNS are VBP hand RB coded VVN , , and CC thus RB building NN is VBZ ignored VVN it PP is VBZ assumed VVN that IN correct JJ representations NNS will MD be VB available JJ through IN some DT external JJ process NN . SENT The DT result NN of IN SME's NP dependence NN on IN rigid JJ representations NNS is VBZ that IN decisions NNS in IN representation NN must MD be VB precisely RB the DT right JJ one's NNS before IN processing NN starts NNS . SENT But CC such JJ information NN as IN to TO which WDT one's NNS are VBP correct JJ is VBZ not RB available JJ ahead RB of IN time NN unless IN even RB to TO some DT extent NN the DT analogy NN to TO be VB made VVN is VBZ known VVN ahead RB of IN time NN . SENT And CC this DT is VBZ what WP makes VVZ SME NP guilty JJ of IN 20 CD 20 CD hindsight NN . SENT Talking VVG Cross NP Purposes NP While IN these DT characterizations NNS are VBP true JJ , , CFH NP may MD have VH inaccurately RB construed VVN what WP Gentner NP et NP al NP . SENT claim NN SME NP can MD do VV . SENT CFH NP claim NN that WDT , , the DT SME NP program NN is VBZ said VVN to TO discover VV an DT analogy NN between IN an DT atom NN and CC the DT solar JJ system NN Chalmers NP et NP al NP . SENT , , 1992 CD , , p NN . SENT 196 CD . SENT emphasis NN added VVD . SENT This DT is VBZ not RB true JJ . SENT SME NP is VBZ intended VVN to TO explain VV what WP happens VVZ in IN the DT comprehension NN of IN an DT analogy NN between IN an DT atom NN and CC the DT solar JJ system NN Gentner NP , , 1983 CD . SENT Gentner NP , , 1989 CD . SENT It PP is VBZ not RB being VBG proposed VVN as IN a DT model NN of IN discovery NN through IN analogy NN unlike IN BACON NN , , where WRB CFH's NP criticisms NNS do VVP seem VV apt JJ . SENT It PP seems VVZ there EX is VBZ an DT important JJ distinction NN which WDT both DT Gentner NP and CC CFH NP have VHP missed VVN . SENT It PP begins VVZ with IN an DT approach NN that WDT is VBZ not RB made VVN explicit JJ by IN Gentner NP concerning VVG what WP the DT structure NN mapping NN theory NN is VBZ an DT explanation NN of IN . SENT First LS outlined VVN in IN Gentner NP 1983 CD , , the DT Structure NN Mapping NN Theory NN is VBZ described VVN as IN an DT explanation NN of IN how WRB analogies NNS are VBP produced VVN . SENT In IN order NN to TO get VV this DT explanation NN , , however RB , , Gentner NP claims VVZ that IN the DT theory NN is VBZ aimed VVN at IN answering VVG the DT following VVG question NN . SENT how WRB is VBZ it PP that IN one PP derives VVZ meaning VVG from IN an DT analogy NN . SENT Gentner NP , , 1983 CD , , p NN . SENT 155 RB This DT latter JJ characterization NN makes VVZ structure NN mapping NN an DT explanation NN of IN how WRB analogies NNS are VBP understood VVN or CC comprehended VVN the DT analogy NN has VHZ already RB been VBN given VVN , , but CC the DT agent NN must MD produce VV a DT mapping NN in IN order NN to TO interpret VV the DT analogy NN . SENT It PP is VBZ not RB clear JJ that IN the DT processes NNS of IN production NN and CC comprehension NN are VBP the DT same JJ . SENT On IN the DT one CD hand NN , , there EX are VBP the DT situations NNS where WRB one PP may MD hear VV an DT analogy NN or CC be VB presented VVN with IN one CD and CC then RB come VV to TO understand VV it PP . SENT In IN most JJS examples NNS of IN how WRB structure NN mapping NN works NNS , , and CC especially RB in IN the DT operation NN of IN SME NP , , the DT theory NN is VBZ presented VVN as IN explaining VVG this DT kind NN of IN situation NN . SENT Production NN , , on IN the DT other JJ hand NN , , seems VVZ to TO involve VV a DT different JJ kind NN of IN situation NN . SENT an DT agent NN observes VVZ events NNS or CC situations NNS and CC is VBZ able JJ , , on IN its PP$ own JJ , , to TO construct VV a DT similarity NN comparison NN between IN two CD situations NNS one PP observed VVD and CC one PP recalled VVD and CC thus RB produce VV a DT novel NN analogy NN . SENT While IN both DT understanding NN and CC production NN situations NNS may MD share VV the DT common JJ aspect NN of IN structure NN mapping NN , , the DT conditions NNS that WDT lead VVP to TO and CC influence VV the DT comparison NN are VBP very RB different JJ . SENT All PDT the DT conditions NNS that WDT surround VVP the DT mapping NN are VBP vital JJ to TO understanding NN whether IN an DT analogy NN is VBZ being VBG understood VVN or CC whether IN a DT novel NN analogy NN is VBZ being VBG produced VVN to TO leave VV the DT conditions NNS of IN the DT mapping NN ambiguous JJ seems VVZ to TO be VB a DT mistake NN . SENT To TO claim VV that IN they PP are VBP the DT same JJ process NN is VBZ a DT profound JJ statement NN about IN cognition NN . SENT Whether IN structure NN mapping NN is VBZ claiming VVG this DT , , or CC if IN it PP is VBZ only RB a DT model NN of IN analogy NN comprehension NN , , is VBZ not RB made VVN clear JJ in IN Gentner's NP central JJ papers NNS 1980 CD , , 1983 CD , , 1989 CD . SENT Gentner's NP theory NN is VBZ a DT theory NN of IN understanding VVG specifically RB , , for IN good JJ analogies NNS but CC she PP doesn't VVD have VH a DT theory NN of IN how WRB analogies NNS are VBP created VVN in IN the DT first JJ place NN . SENT For IN example NN , , she PP has VHZ a DT theory NN of IN what WP happened VVD when WRB Rutherford NP thought VVD the DT atom NN is VBZ like IN that DT solar JJ system NN and CC of IN what WP may MD go VV on IN when WRB we PP are VBP given VVN this DT information NN , , but CC she PP does VVZ not RB have VH a DT theory NN of IN how WRB he PP managed VVD to TO create VV this DT analogy NN in IN the DT first JJ place NN . SENT In IN other JJ words NNS , , she PP doesn't VVD have VH a DT theory NN of IN where WRB structures NNS come VVP from IN but CC she PP is VBZ working VVG on IN it PP . SENT see VV her PP$ treatment NN of IN unpacking VVG in IN Kotovsky NP Gentner NP , , 1990 CD . SENT However RB , , she PP does VVZ have VHP a DT theory NN of IN what WP analogies NNS are VBP , , given VVN already RB existing JJ structures NNS . SENT Thus RB , , it PP appears VVZ that IN it PP is VBZ an DT explanation NN of IN analogy NN comprehension NN that IN structure NN mapping NN is VBZ ultimately RB after RB . SENT The DT situation NN Gentner NP is VBZ explaining VVG is VBZ consistently RB presented VVN as IN an DT agent NN being VBG given VVN an DT analogy NN and CC the DT agent NN then RB performs VVZ the DT mapping NN to TO create VV a DT new JJ representation NN , , thus RB high JJ lighting NN how WRB the DT two CD situations NNS are VBP analogous JJ . SENT This DT is VBZ to TO be VB distinguished VVN from IN the DT case NN of IN novel NN , , independent JJ , , and CC unprompted JJ analogy NN creation NN . SENT It PP seems VVZ that IN CFH NP may MD have VH gotten VVN their PP$ mistaken JJ impression NN of IN Gentner NP from IN this DT ambiguity NN between IN analogy NN comprehension NN and CC production NN . SENT This DT also RB demonstrates VVZ that IN CFH NP probably RB don't VVD make VV a DT distinction NN between IN the DT two CD . SENT A DT model NN may MD exist VV in IN which WDT these DT two CD are VBP in IN one CD and CC the DT same JJ mechanism NN , , but CC as IN Gentner's NP model NN appears VVZ to TO demonstrate VV , , in IN not RB accounting VVG for IN representation NN construction NN , , analogy NN comprehension NN might MD be VB separated VVN from IN analogy NN production NN . SENT SME NP is VBZ a DT model NN of IN analogy NN understanding NN or CC comprehension NN , , where WRB the DT cognitive JJ agent NN is VBZ given VVN the DT analogy NN and CC must MD understand VV it PP given JJ its PP$ current JJ knowledge NN database NN i NP . SENT e SYM . SENT , , construct VV a DT representation NN from IN existing VVG ones NNS . SENT In IN this DT case NN , , there EX may MD be VB no DT need NN for IN construction NN of IN novel NN representations NNS , , and CC this DT limits VVZ its PP$ capacity NN to TO capture VV the DT dynamic JJ aspects NNS of IN natural JJ analogy NN production NN . SENT Any DT model NN that WDT doesn't VVD take VV this DT into IN account NN will MD be VB dependent JJ on IN someone NN or CC some DT module NN to TO organize VV the DT information NN in IN a DT suitable JJ manner NN so RB that IN a DT mapping NN can MD take VV place NN . SENT So IN the DT dependence NN on IN hand NN coding VVG representations NNS has VHZ severely RB limited VVN the DT ability NN of IN SME NP to TO capture VV creative JJ analogical JJ production NN in IN the DT wild JJ . SENT However RB , , as IN SME NP is VBZ a DT model NN of IN analogy NN understanding NN , , it PP is VBZ immune JJ to TO CFH's NP criticisms NNS based VVN on IN creating VVG an DT analogy NN because IN in IN understanding NN , , the DT hand NN codings NNS they PP look VVP for IN hand NN coding VVG the DT representations NNS may MD be VB legitimate JJ . SENT In IN light NN of IN this DT , , it PP is VBZ no DT surprise NN that IN SME NP doesn't NP do VVP what WP CFH NP would MD like VV to TO see VV they PP have VHP mistaken VVN what WP SME NP is VBZ explaining VVG . SENT This DT mistaken JJ accusation NN as IN to TO what WP Gentner NP ultimately RB claims VVZ SME NP can MD do VV is VBZ very RB telling VVG . SENT The DT key JJ criticisms NNS that IN CFH NP bring VVP to TO bear VV , , with IN respect NN to TO what WP is VBZ missed VVN in IN not RB accounting VVG for IN representation NN construction NN , , depend VVP on IN SME NP being VBG intended VVN to TO explain VV how WRB representations NNS are VBP constructed VVN . SENT HLP NP seems VVZ to TO be VB after IN the DT an DT explanation NN of IN novel JJ analogy NN production NN . SENT Their PP$ explanatory JJ task NN , , from IN which WDT their PP$ criticisms NNS against IN structure NN mapping NN are VBP derived VVN , , are VBP aimed VVN at IN how WRB the DT analogy NN situation NN is VBZ perceived VVN , , and CC thus RB , , how WRB representations NNS are VBP constructed VVN in IN the DT first JJ place NN . SENT But CC this DT seems VVZ to TO be VB something NN that IN SME NP isn't NP trying VVG to TO do VV . SENT CFH NP and CC the DT SME NP researchers NNS are VBP talking VVG at IN cross NN purposes NNS . SENT The DT View NN Of IN Analogy NN From IN The DT Horizontal NN And CC The DT Vertical JJ The DT fight NN between IN Hofstadter NP and CC Gentner NP appears VVZ unwarranted JJ , , particularly RB in IN light NN of IN the DT fact NN that IN they PP are VBP after IN different JJ aspects NNS of IN analogical JJ reasoning NN . SENT And CC CFH NP have VHP in IN some DT sense NN been VBN unfair JJ in IN their PP$ criticisms NNS of IN SME NP . SENT Their PP$ 1992 CD paper NN is VBZ written VVN as RB though IN SMT NP and CC approaches VVZ like IN it PP had VHD completely RB missed VVN what WP analogy NN was VBD about RB . SENT Instead RB , , they PP addressed VVD a DT new JJ issue NN in IN analogy NN , , and CC likewise RB failed VVD to TO appreciate VV the DT perspective NN SMT NP addresses VVZ . SENT But CC what WP has VHZ happened VVN here RB . SENT Both DT explanations NNS seem VVP important JJ to TO an DT understanding NN of IN analogy NN , , yet CC we PP are VBP arguing VVG that IN they PP are VBP talking VVG past IN one CD another DT . SENT We PP claim VVP that IN this DT a DT result NN of IN the DT two CD different JJ sets NNS of IN perspectives NNS and CC goals NNS in IN considering VVG analogy NN phenomena NNS . SENT This DT is VBZ best RBS described VVN using VVG a DT spatial JJ metaphor NN of IN horizontal JJ and CC vertical JJ perspectives NNS . SENT On IN the DT one CD hand NN , , we PP have VHP SMT NP , , which WDT looks VVZ at IN analogy NN from IN a DT horizontal JJ perspective NN . SENT SMT NP views VVZ analogy NN in IN it's JJ variety NN of IN forms NNS and CC psychological JJ manifestations NNS , , over IN a DT variety NN of IN different JJ comparison NN domains NNS , , and CC searches NNS for IN the DT common JJ mechanism NN s PP involved VVD in IN all PDT these DT cases NNS . SENT This DT perspective NN is VBZ likewise RB seen VVN in IN SME NP , , which WDT embodies VVZ the DT positive JJ aspects NNS of IN SMT NP by IN employing VVG explicit JJ structure NN mapping NN and CC being VBG a DT general JJ mechanism NN for IN all DT kinds NNS of IN possible JJ comparison NN domains NNS . SENT HLP NP , , on IN the DT other JJ hand NN , , looks VVZ at IN analogy NN from IN a DT vertical JJ perspective NN . SENT HLP NP views VVZ analogy NN as IN a DT process NN from IN the DT bottom NN up RB . SENT as IN a DT representation NN building NN process NN based VVN on IN low JJ level NN perceptual JJ processes NNS interacting VVG with IN high JJ level NN concepts NNS . SENT Copycat NN embodies VVZ the DT positive JJ aspects NNS of IN HLP NP by IN demonstrating VVG how WRB representations NNS might MD be VB constructed VVN , , and CC by IN not RB depending VVG on IN human JJ hand NN coding VVG once RB set VVN up RP in IN it's NP micro NP domain NN . SENT This DT metaphor NN also RB helps VVZ to TO make VV sense NN out RP of IN the DT criticisms NNS that IN each DT theory NN has VHZ of IN the DT other JJ in IN that WDT we PP can MD now RB see VV what WP questions VVZ they PP don't JJ answer NN . SENT First RB , , SME NP does VVZ not RB have VH an DT answer NN for IN the DT hand NN coding VVG problem NN . SENT CFH NP and CC Mitchell NP are VBP correct JJ in IN that DT SME NP does VVZ not RB account VV for IN a DT very RB compelling JJ problem NN . SENT where WRB do VVP the DT representations NNS upon IN which WDT mapping NN is VBZ performed VVN come VVN from IN . SENT In IN light NN of IN this DT question NN , , SME NP appears VVZ artificial JJ . SENT Copycat NN , , on IN the DT other JJ hand NN , , is VBZ constrained VVN by IN domain NN specificity NN . SENT it PP can MD only RB produce VV analogies NNS in IN a DT limited JJ letter NN domain NN . SENT And CC it PP is VBZ unclear JJ as RB to TO how WRB the DT Copycat NN style NN architecture NN can MD be VB extended VVN to TO other JJ , , more RBR psychologically RB plausible JJ domains NNS Morrison NP , , 1994 CD . SENT Thus RB , , a DT similarly RB compelling JJ problem NN is VBZ left VVN unanswered JJ with IN Copycat NN . SENT How WRB do VVP we PP account VVP for IN the DT ability NN to TO produce VV analogies NNS between IN practically RB any DT domain NN . SENT Both CC of IN these DT are VBP daunting JJ problems NNS , , and CC while IN each DT theory NN proposes VVZ to TO answer VV one PP , , it PP has VHZ failed VVN to TO captured VVN the DT other JJ . SENT Table NN 1 CD is VBZ a DT summary NN comparison NN of IN SME NP and CC Copycat NN to TO highlight VV the DT two CD perspectives NNS , , what WP they PP are VBP successful JJ in IN explaining VVG , , and CC where WRB they PP don't VVD . SENT Table NN 1 CD . SENT Summary NN Comparison NN of IN SME NP and CC Copycat NN . SENT Pros NNS and CC Cons NP SME NP PROS NNS . SENT Employs VVZ explicit JJ and CC well RB defined VVN structure NN mapping NN if IN knowledge NN is VBZ structured VVN and CC we PP believe VVP it PP is VBZ , , then RB there RB must MD be VB some DT sort NN of IN structure NN mapping NN that WDT takes VVZ place NN to TO link VV up RP base JJ knowledge NN to TO target VV knowledge NN Based VVN solidly RB on IN a DT robust JJ psychological JJ theory NN developed VVN over IN almost RB two CD decades NNS of IN empirical JJ investigation NN Generally RB applicable JJ to TO all DT domains NNS of IN analogical JJ comparison NN CONS NNS . SENT Hand NN coding VVG can't NN produce VV it's JJ own JJ representations NNS . SENT Thus RB , , depends VVZ on IN work NN done VVN by IN humans NNS or CC implausible JJ separate JJ representation NN module NN . SENT Copycat NN PROS NNS . SENT In IN a DT vague JJ way NN , , captures VVZ the DT notion NN of IN representation NN construction NN closer RBR to TO novel JJ representation NN production NN Once RB set VVD up RP by IN humans NNS in IN a DT specific JJ domain NN the DT letter NN domain NN , , it PP operates VVZ independently RB of IN humans NNS CONS NNS . SENT Domain NN specificity NN can MD only RB produce VV analogies NNS in IN limited JJ letter NN domain NN Conclusion NN We PP are VBP left VVN with IN a DT key JJ question NN . SENT can MD the DT two CD problems NNS above RB be VB solved VVN and CC in IN a DT unified JJ way NN . SENT As IN things NNS stand VVP now RB , , it PP seems VVZ as RB though IN we PP are VBP in IN a DT dilemma NN in IN that WDT the DT attempts NNS of IN SMT NP and CC HLP NP to TO model VV one CD aspect NN of IN analogy NN resulted VVN in IN missing VVG another DT . SENT And CC this DT is VBZ particularly RB compelling JJ when WRB one PP considers VVZ the DT extent NN and CC complexity NN of IN each DT these DT models NNS and CC the DT theories NNS behind IN them PP are VBP among IN the DT most RBS respectable JJ cognitive JJ science NN has VHZ to TO offer VV . SENT And CC while IN they PP may MD not RB have VH gotten VVN the DT whole JJ picture NN , , they PP do VVP offer VV important JJ perspectives NNS of IN analogy NN phenomena NNS . SENT In IN spite NN of IN this DT dilemma NN , , we PP do VVP wish VV to TO keep VV the DT faith NN and CC continue VV to TO believe VV that IN a DT comprehensive JJ theory NN of IN analogy NN does VVZ exist VV . SENT A DT comprehensive JJ theory NN of IN analogy NN should MD be VB able JJ to TO view VV analogy NN from IN all DT sides NNS . SENT it PP should MD be VB able JJ to TO tell VV a DT complete JJ story NN using VVG both DT horizontal JJ and CC vertical JJ perspectives NNS . SENT and CC it PP should MD be VB able JJ to TO explain VV how WRB analogies NNS are VBP produced VVN as IN well RB as RB understood VVN , , according VVG to TO the DT same JJ model NN this DT issue NN is VBZ addressed VVN in IN Morrison NP , , 1994 CD . SENT While IN we PP do VVP not RB have VH a DT theory NN to TO offer VV , , we PP do VVP think VV that IN we PP have VHP added VVN perspective NN to TO the DT fight NN that WDT is VBZ taking VVG place NN perspective NN that WDT gives VVZ us PP a DT deeper JJR understanding NN of IN the DT theoretical JJ terrain NN to TO be VB covered VVN in IN a DT comprehensive JJ theory NN of IN analogy NN , , and CC what WP current JJ approaches NNS have VHP to TO offer VV to TO such JJ theory NN . SENT ENDNOTES NP 1 CD The DT conceptual JJ level NN is VBZ the DT level NN at IN which WDT concepts NNS begin VVP to TO play VV a DT role NN . SENT a DT concept NN is VBZ anything NN from IN object NN recognition NN e NN . SENT g NN . SENT , , recognizing VVG an DT apple NN to TO the DT ability NN to TO grasp VV complex JJ relations NNS and CC situations NNS e NN . SENT g NN . SENT , , that IN Bill NP Clinton NP is VBZ in IN the DT Democratic JJ Party NP . SENT Return NN to TO Footnote NN 1 CD , , above IN 2 CD The DT authors NNS of IN this DT paper NN are VBP David NP J NP . SENT Chalmers NP , , Robert NP M NP . SENT French NP and CC Douglas NP Hofstadter NP . SENT We PP will MD refer VV to TO the DT authors NNS as IN CFH NP for IN abbreviation NN . SENT Return NN to TO Footnote NN 2 CD , , above IN 3 CD The NP creators NNS Langley NP et CC al NP . SENT of IN BACON NN , , a DT model NN of IN scientific JJ discovery NN , , claim VVP that DT BACON NN is VBZ able JJ to TO make VV scientific JJ discoveries NNS , , such JJ as IN Kepler's NP third JJ law NN of IN planetary JJ motion NN . SENT However RB , , the DT model NN is VBZ given VVN precisely RB the DT data NNS required VVN to TO derive VV the DT law NN , , so RB that IN it's JJ discovery NN is VBZ reduced VVN to TO a DT rather RB simple JJ deduction NN that IN any DT beginning VVG physics NN student NN should MD be VB able JJ to TO deduce VV . SENT For IN this DT reason NN , , Chalmers NP et CC al NP . SENT accuse VV BACON NN of IN having VHG 20 CD 20 CD hindsight NN in IN being VBG given VVN only RB what WP is VBZ needed VVN , , when WRB in IN fact NN the DT actual JJ cognitive JJ processes NNS involved VVN in IN such JJ scientific JJ discoveries NNS are VBP faced VVN with IN the DT much RB more RBR monumental JJ task NN of IN paring VVG down RP what WP is VBZ relevant JJ and CC making VVG careful JJ hypotheses NNS paired VVN with IN testing NN , , all DT part NN of IN an DT intricate JJ process NN of IN induction NN . SENT Return NN to TO Footnote NN 3 CD , , above IN 4 CD This DT fallacy NN is VBZ close JJ to TO the DT fallacy NN of IN begging VVG the DT question NN . SENT for IN example NN , , claiming VVG that IN a DT program NN has VHZ independently RB arrived VVN at IN a DT discovery NN , , when WRB the DT discovery NN was VBD already RB coded VVN by IN the DT programmer NN into IN the DT program NN . SENT For IN an DT excellent JJ discussion NN of IN this DT sort NN of IN fallacy NN concerning VVG two CD other JJ programs NNS , , AM NP and CC EURISKO NP , , see VVP Koza NP 1992 CD , , pp NP . SENT 232 CD 236 CD . SENT Return NN to TO Footnote NN 4 CD , , above IN References NNS Chalmers NP , , D NP . SENT J NN . SENT , , French NP , , R NP . SENT M NN . SENT , , Hofstadter NP , , D NP . SENT R SYM . SENT 1992 CD . SENT High JJ level NN perception NN , , representation NN , , and CC analogy NN . SENT A DT critique NN of IN artificial JJ intelligence NN methodology NN . SENT Journal NP of IN Experimental JJ Theoretical JJ Artificial JJ Intelligence NP 4 CD . SENT 185 CD 211 CD . SENT Falkenhainer NP , , B NN . SENT , , Forbus NP , , K NP . SENT D SYM . SENT , , Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT 1986 CD . SENT The DT structure NN mapping NN engine NN . SENT In IN Proceedings NNS of IN the DT American NP Association NP for IN Artificial JJ Intelligence NP pp NP . SENT 272 CD 277 CD , , Philadelphia NP . SENT Falkenhainer NP , , B NN . SENT , , Forbus NP , , K NP . SENT D SYM . SENT , , Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT 1989 CD . SENT The DT Structure NN Mapping NN Engine NN . SENT algorithm NN and CC examples NNS . SENT Artificial JJ Intelligence NP 41 CD . SENT 1 CD 63 CD . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT 1980 CD . SENT The DT Structure NN of IN analogical JJ models NNS in IN science NN BBN NP Tech NP . SENT Rep NP . SENT 4451 CD . SENT Cambridge NP , , MA NN . SENT Bolt NP , , Beranek NP Newman NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT 1983 CD . SENT Structure NN mapping NN . SENT A DT theoretical JJ framework NN for IN analogy NN . SENT Cognitive JJ Science NP 7 CD . SENT 155 CD 170 CD . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT 1989 CD . SENT The DT mechanisms NNS of IN analogical JJ learning NN . SENT In IN Vosniadou NP , , S NP . SENT Ortony NP , , A NP . SENT Eds NPS . SENT , , Similarity NN and CC Analogical JJ Reasoning NN pp NNS . SENT 199 CD 241 CD . SENT Cambridge NP . SENT Cambridge NP University NP Press NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT , , Falkenhainer NP , , B NN . SENT , , Skorstad NP , , J NP . SENT 1987 CD , , January NP . SENT Metaphor NN . SENT The DT good JJ , , the DT bad JJ , , and CC the DT ugly JJ . SENT In IN Proceedings NNS of IN the DT Third JJ Conference NN on IN Theoretical JJ Issues NNS in IN Natural NP Language NP Processing NP pp NP . SENT 155 CD 159 CD . SENT Las NP Cruces NN , , NM NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT Forbus NP , , K NP . SENT 1991 CD . SENT MAC NN FAC NP . SENT A DT model NN of IN similarity NN based VVN retrieval NN . SENT In IN Proceedings NNS of IN the DT Thirteenth JJ Annual JJ Conference NN of IN the DT Cognitive JJ Science NP Society NP . SENT Hillsdale NP , , NJ NP . SENT Lawrence NP Earlbaum NP Associates NPS . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT , , Imai NP , , M NP . SENT 1992 CD . SENT Is VBZ the DT future NN always RB ahead RB . SENT Evidence NN for IN system NN mappings NNS in IN understanding VVG space NN time NN metaphors NNS . SENT In IN Proceedings NNS of IN the DT Fourteenth JJ Annual JJ Conference NN of IN the DT Cognitive JJ Science NP Society NP . SENT Chicago NP , , IL NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT Landers NP , , R NP . SENT 1985 CD , , November NP . SENT Analogical JJ remindings NNS . SENT A DT good JJ match NN is VBZ hard JJ to TO find VV . SENT In IN Proceedings NNS of IN the DT International NP Conference NP on IN Systems NP , , Man NP , , and CC Cybernetics NNS . SENT Tucson NP , , AZ NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT , , Rattermann NP , , M NP . SENT J NP . SENT 1991 CD . SENT Language NN and CC the DT career NN of IN similarity NN . SENT In IN Gelman NP , , S NP . SENT A DT . SENT Byrnes NP , , J NP . SENT P NN . SENT Eds NPS . SENT , , Perspectives NNS on IN thought NN and CC language NN . SENT Interrelations NNS in IN development NN . SENT London NP . SENT Cambridge NP University NP Press NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT , , Ratterman NP , , M NP . SENT , , Forbus NP , , K NP . SENT 1993 CD . SENT The DT roles NNS of IN similarity NN in IN transfer NN . SENT Separating VVG retrievability NN from IN inferential JJ soundness NN . SENT Cognitive JJ Psychology NP 25 CD . SENT 524 CD 575 CD . SENT Hofstadter NP , , D NP . SENT R SYM . SENT 1984 CD . SENT The DT Copycat NN project NN . SENT An DT experiment NN in IN nondeterministic JJ and CC creative JJ analogies NNS Memo NN 755 CD . SENT Cambridge NP , , MA NN . SENT MIT NP , , Artificial JJ Intelligence NP Laboratory NP . SENT Hofstadter NP , , D NP . SENT R SYM . SENT Mitchell NP , , M NP . SENT 1992 CD . SENT An DT overview NN of IN the DT Copycat NN project NN . SENT In IN Holyoak NP , , K NP . SENT J NP . SENT Barnden NP , , J NP . SENT Eds NPS . SENT Connectionist NN Approaches NNS to TO Analogy NN , , Metaphor NN , , and CC Case NP Based VVN Reasoning NN Norwood NP , , NJ NP . SENT Ablex NP . SENT Hofstadter NP , , D NP . SENT R SYM . SENT Mitchell NP , , M NP . SENT , , French NP , , R NP . SENT M NP . SENT 1987 CD . SENT Fluid JJ concepts NNS and CC creative JJ analogies NNS . SENT A DT theory NN and CC its PP$ computer NN implementation NN . SENT Technical JJ report NN 10 CD , , Cognitive JJ Science NP and CC Machine NP Intelligence NP Laboratory NP , , University NP of IN Michigan NP , , Ann NP Arbor NP . SENT Hofstadter NP , , D NP . SENT R SYM . SENT the DT Fluid JJ Analogies NNS Research NP Group NP 1995 CD . SENT Fluid JJ Concepts NNS and CC Creative JJ Analogies NNS . SENT New NP York NP . SENT Basic JJ Books NNS . SENT Kotovsky NP , , L NP . SENT Gentner NP , , D NP . SENT 1990 CD . SENT Pack NP Light NP . SENT You PP will MD go VV farther RBR . SENT In IN Proceedings NNS of IN the DT Second NP Midwest NP Artificial JJ Intelligence NN and CC Cognitive JJ Science NP Society NP Conference NP . SENT pp NP . SENT 60 CD 72 CD . SENT Mitchell NP , , M NP . SENT 1990 CD . SENT Copycat NN . SENT A DT computer NN model NN of IN high JJ level NN perception NN and CC conceptual JJ slippage NN in IN analogy NN making NN . SENT Doctoral JJ dissertation NN , , University NP of IN Michigan NP . SENT Mitchell NP , , M NP . SENT 1993 CD . SENT Analogy NN Making VVG as IN Perception NN . SENT A DT Computer NP Model NP . SENT Cambridge NP . SENT The DT MIT NP Press NP . SENT Mitchell NP , , M NP . SENT Hofstadter NP , , D NP . SENT R SYM . SENT 1990 CD . SENT The DT emergence NN of IN understanding NN in IN a DT computer NN model NN of IN concepts NNS and CC analogy NN making NN . SENT Physica NP D NP 42 CD . SENT 322 CD 334 CD . SENT Morrison NP , , C NP . SENT T NN . SENT 1994 CD . SENT Analogy NN and CC Constructive JJ Representation NN . SENT Master's NP Thesis NN . SENT Dept NP . SENT of IN Philosophy NN , , SUNY NP Binghamton NP , , Binghamton NP , , NY NP . SENT