Analogy as a basic function of thinking
https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2024.2.2
Abstract
We present an analytical study that puts forward a hypothesis about the role of analogy in thinking. The article presents a critique of the structural mapping hypothesis in analogy as an explanation of the analogical argument and will offer an alternative explanation — the functional hypothesis of the analogical argument. It will also be shown how such functions of thinking as recognition and memory, metaphor and syllogism, generalization and ontology, deduction and induction can be realized with the help of the analogy method developed by the author. The article puts forward a hypothesis that these different functions are nothing more than different manifestations of one mechanism for the dissemination of thinking patterns through analogy.
In the previous article [1] we described the results of experiments on obtaining analogs of words based on the statistics of predicates extracted from texts by a simple parser. In this article, continuing the topic of analogy, we will analyze two aspects:
- how similar expressions (analogous argument) are found when solving problems and learning;
- what is the role of analogy in thinking, namely, what thinking processes are realized with the help of analogy.
The article critically examines the most well-known approaches to explaining and attempting to implement analogy. The authors propose another hypothesis, called functional analogy, which is distinguished by the simplicity of explaining the analogical argument, greater correspondence to examples of analogy, in the authors’ opinion, and the possibility of programmatic implementation.
About the Author
A. B. KhomyakovRussian Federation
Alexander B. Khomyakov, Master of Physical Sciences
Saint-Petersburg
References
1. Khomyakov A. B., Chizhik P. A new way of finding analogues as an opportunity to study language, thinking and build artificial intelligence systems // Philosophical Problems of IT & Cyberspace (PhilIT&C). 2024. № 1. Р. 77-88. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2024.1.5.
2. Forbus K. D., Falkenhainer B., Gentner D. The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples // Artificial Intelligence. Volume 41, Issue 1, November 1989. P. 1-63.
3. Kokinov B., Petrov A. Integration of Memory and Reasoning in AnalogyMaking: The AMBR. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2593827.
4. Gentner D., Holyoak K. J., Kokinov B. N. The Analogical Mind Perspectives from Cognitive Science. MIT Press, 2000541 pages.
5. Chollet F. It’s Not About Scale, It’s About Abstraction. https://youtu.be/s7_NlkBwdj8?si=ENkRbgMZMI84MaJg.
6. Fodor J. A., Pylyshyn Z. W. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis // Cognition, Volume 28, Issues 1-2, March 1988. P. 3-71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027788900315.
7. Hofstadter D., Mitchell M. The copycat project: A model of mental fluidity and analogy-making. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243649607.
8. Forbus K. D., Gentner D., Law K. MAC/FAC: A model of similaritybased retrieval // Cognitive Science, Volume 19, Issue 2, April–June 1995. P. 141-205.
9. Hesse M. Analogy and Confirmation Theory // Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/abs/analogy-and-confirmationtheory.
10. Fauconnier G., Lakoff G. On Metaphor and Blending // Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), December 2009.
11. Hofstadter D. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies // Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995. 250 p.
12. Holyoak K. J., Thagard P. The analogical mind // American Psychologist, 1997. P. 35-44.
Review
For citations:
Khomyakov A.B. Analogy as a basic function of thinking. Philosophical Problems of IT & Cyberspace (PhilIT&C). 2024;(2):23-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2024.2.2