We argue for the advantages of the probabilistic language of thought (pLOT), a recently
emerging approach to modeling human cognition. Work using this framework demonstrates how
the pLOT (a) refines the debate between symbols and statistics in cognitive modeling, (b)
permits theories that draw on insights from both nativist and empiricist approaches, (c)
explains the origins of novel and complex computational concepts, and (d) provides a
framework for abstraction that can link sensation and conception. In each of these areas,
the pLOT provides a productive middle ground between historical divides in cognitive
psychology, pointing to a promising way forward for the field.
ErdoganG.YildirimI.JacobsR.
A. (2015). (See References). Shows how a
probabilistic LOT can explain the learning of representations that span individual
modalities and sensory systems.
2.
FeldmanJ. (2000). (See References). Shows human
sensitivity to logical complexity in learning tasks, thus providing evidence for the
psychological reality of logical representations like those posited by the
LOT.
3.
FodorJ. (1975). (See References). A philosophical
overview of the arguments supporting a LOT.
4.
GoodmanN.
D.LassiterD. (2015). Probabilistic semantics and
pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought. In LappinS.FoxC. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory
(2nd ed., pp. 655-686).
Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Blackwell. Applies a probabilistic language to
understanding semantic and pragmatic theories and phenomena in
linguistics.
5.
GoodmanN.TenenbaumJ.FeldmanJ.GriffithsT. (2008). (See References). The first work to
combine logical LOT representations with a Bayesian inferential model, which develops
methods and techniques commonly used by later LOT
models.
6.
PiantadosiS.TenenbaumJ.GoodmanN. (2012). (See References). Shows how children’s
patterns in learning number words can be explained by a probabilistic LOT, helping to
direct the philosophical debate about whether concepts such as number are necessarily
innate.
7.
AndersonJ. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex
cognition. American Psychologist, 51,
355–365.
8.
BooleG. (1854). An investigation of the laws of thought: On
which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities.
London, England: Walton &
Maberly.
9.
BrunerJ.GoodnowJ.AustinG. (1956). A study of thinking.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
10.
CareyS. (2009). The origin of concepts.
Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
11.
ChurchA. (1936). An unsolvable problem of elementary
number theory. American Journal of Mathematics,
58, 345–363.
12.
De
RaedtL. (2008). Logical and relational learning.
New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
13.
ErdoganG.YildirimI.JacobsR.
A. (2015). From sensory signals to
modality-independent conceptual representations: A probabilistic language of thought
approach. PLoS Computational Biology,
11(11), e1004610. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004610
14.
EvansN.LevinsonS. (2009). The myth of language universals:
Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.
Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 32,
429–448.
15.
FeldmanJ. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in
human concept learning. Nature, 407,
630–633.
16.
FeldmanJ. (2012). Symbolic representation of
probabilistic worlds. Cognition, 123,
61–83.
17.
FodorJ. (1975). The language of thought.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
18.
FodorJ. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought
revisited. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
19.
FodorJ.PylyshynZ. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive
architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition,
28(1–2),
3–71.
20.
GeislerW. (2003). Ideal observer
analysis. In ChalupaL.
M.WernerJ.
S. (Eds.) The visual neurosciences (pp.
825–837). Cambridge, MA:
Bradford Books.
21.
GoldE. (1967). Language identification in the
limit. Information and Control, 10,
447–474.
22.
GoodmanN.MansinghkaV.RoyD.BonawitzK.TenenbaumJ. (2008). Church: A language for generative
models. In McAllesterD.MyllymakiP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th conference on uncertainty in
artificial intelligence, UAI 2008 (pp. 220–229).
Corvallis, OR: AUAI
Press.
23.
GoodmanN.TenenbaumJ.FeldmanJ.GriffithsT. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based
concept learning. Cognitive Science,
32, 108–154.
24.
GoodmanN.TenenbaumJ.GerstenbergT. (2015). Concepts in a probabilistic language
of thought. In MargolisLaurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of
concepts (pp. 623–654). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
25.
HindleyJ.SeldinJ. (1986). Introduction to combinators and
λ-calculus. Cambridge, England:
Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
26.
HuntE.MarinJ.StoneP. (1966). Experiments in induction.
Oxford, England: Academic
Press.
27.
JohnsonK. (2004). Gold’s theorem and cognitive
science. Philosophy of Science, 71,
571–592.
28.
McClellandJ.
L.PattersonK. (2002a). Rules or connections in past-tense
inflections: What does the evidence rule out?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6,
465–472.
29.
McClellandJ.
L.PattersonK. (2002b). ‘Words or rules’ cannot exploit the
regularity in exceptions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6, 464–465.
30.
PiantadosiS.GoodmanN.TenenbaumJ. (2015). Modeling the acquisition of quantifier
semantics: A case study in function word learnability. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
31.
PiantadosiS.TenenbaumJ.GoodmanN. (2012). Bootstrapping in a language of
thought: A formal model of numerical concept learning.
Cognition, 123,
199–217.
32.
PinkerS.UllmanM.
T. (2002a). Combination and structure, not
gradedness, is the issue. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6, 472–474.
33.
PinkerS.UllmanM.
T. (2002b). The past and future of the past
tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6, 456–463.
SiskindJ. (1996). A computational study of
cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings.
Cognition, 61,
31–91.
36.
SpelkeE. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge
and natural language. In GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (Eds.), Language in mind (pp.
277–312). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
TenenbaumJ. (1999). A Bayesian framework for concept
learning (PhD thesis). Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
39.
TuringA.
M. (1937). Computability and
λ-definability. The Journal of Symbolic Logic,
2, 153–163.
40.
WallravenC.BülthoffH.
H.WaterkampS.van
DamL.GaißertN. (2014). The eyes grasp, the hands see: Metric
category knowledge transfers between vision and touch.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21,
976–985.
41.
XuF.KushnirT. (2013). Infants are rational constructivist
learners. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
22, 28–32.
42.
YildirimI.JacobsR.
A. (2013). Transfer of object category knowledge
across visual and haptic modalities: Experimental and computational
studies. Cognition, 126,
135–148.
43.
YildirimI.JacobsR.
A. (2015). Learning multisensory representations
for auditory-visual transfer of sequence category knowledge: A probabilistic language of
thought approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
22, 673–686.
