Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-28T08:21:02.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rule-Following and the Evolution of Basic Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jeffrey A. Barrett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article concerns how rule-following behavior might evolve, how an old evolved rule might come to be appropriated to a new context, and how simple concepts might coevolve with rule-following behavior. In particular, we consider how the transitive inferential rule-following behavior exhibited by pinyon and scrub jays might evolve in the context of a variety of the Skyrms-Lewis signaling game, then how such a rule might come to be appropriated to carry out inferences regarding stimuli different from those involved in the original evolution of the rule, and how this appropriation involves a step toward the evolution of basic ordinal concepts.

Type
Signaling Theory in Biological and Cognitive Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , December 2014 , pp. 829 - 839
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Brian Skyrms and Cailin O’Connor for discussions on the topic of this article and an anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Alexander, J. M., Skyrms, B., and Zabell, S.. 2012. “Inventing New Signals.” Dynamic Games and Applications 2:129–45.Google Scholar
Argiento, Raffaele, Pemantle, Robin, Skyrms, Brian, and Volkov, Stas. 2009. “Learning to Signal: Analysis of a Micro-Level Reinforcement Model.” Stochastic Processes and Their Applications 119 (2): 373–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. 2007. “Dynamic Partitioning and the Conventionality of Kinds.” Philosophy of Science 74:527–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. 2009. “Faithful Description and the Incommensurability of Evolved Languages.” Philosophical Studies 147 (1): 123–37.Google Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. 2013a. “The Evolution of Simple Rule-Following.” Biological Theory 8 (2): 142–50.. doi:10.1007/s13752-013-0104-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. 2013b. “On the Coevolution of Basic Arithmetic Language and Knowledge.” Erkenninis 78 (5): 1025–36.. doi:10.1007/s10670-012-9398-z.Google Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. 2014a. “The Evolution, Appropriation, and Composition of Rules.” Synthese, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Jeffrey A. 2014b. “On the Coevolution of Theory and Language and the Nature of Successful Inquiry.” Erkenntnis 79 (4): 821–34.. doi:10.1007/s10670-013-9466-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Alan B., Kamil, Alan C., and Balda, Russell P.. 2003. “Social Complexity and Transitive Inference in Corvids.” Animal Behaviour 65:479–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. “The Evolution of Convex Categories.” Linguistics and Philosophy 30:551–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary Exposition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Cailin. 2014. “Evolving Perceptual Categories.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Al, and Erev, Ido. 1995. “Learning in Extensive Form Games: Experimental Data and Simple Dynamical Models in the Intermediate Term.” Games and Economic Behavior 8:164–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian. 2000. “Evolution of Inference.” In Dynamics of Human and Primate Societies, ed. Kohler, Tim and Gumerman, George, 77–88. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gumerman, George 2006. “Signals.” Philosophy of Science 75 (5): 489–500.Google Scholar
Gumerman, George 2010. Signals Evolution, Learning, and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar