TY - JOUR
T1 - From basic affordances to symbolic thought
T2 - A computational phylogenesis of biological intelligence.
AU - Hummel, John E.
AU - Heaton, Rachel F.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium or format for noncommercial use provided the original authors and source are credited and a link to the license is included in attribution. No derivative works are permitted under this license.
PY - 2026
Y1 - 2026
N2 - What is it about human brains that allow us to reason symbolically whereas most other animals cannot? There is evidence that dynamic binding, the ability to combine neurons into groups on the fly, is necessary for symbolic thought, but there is also evidence that it is not sufficient. We propose that two kinds of hierarchical integration—integration of multiple role bindings into multiplace predicates, and integration of multiple correspondences into structure mappings—are minimal requirements, on top of basic dynamic binding, to realize symbolic thought. We tested this hypothesis in a systematic collection of 17 simulations that explored the ability of cognitive architectures with and without the capacity for multiplace predicates and structure mapping to perform various kinds of tasks. The simulations were as generic as possible, in that no task could be performed based on any diagnostic features, depending instead on the capacity for multiplace predicates and structure mapping. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that, along with dynamic binding, multiplace predicates and structure mapping are minimal requirements for basic symbolic thought. These results inform our understanding of how human brains give rise to symbolic thought and speak to the differences between biological intelligence, which tends to generalize broadly from very few training examples, and modern approaches to machine learning, which typically require millions or billions of training examples. The results we report also have important implications for bioinspired artificial intelligence.
AB - What is it about human brains that allow us to reason symbolically whereas most other animals cannot? There is evidence that dynamic binding, the ability to combine neurons into groups on the fly, is necessary for symbolic thought, but there is also evidence that it is not sufficient. We propose that two kinds of hierarchical integration—integration of multiple role bindings into multiplace predicates, and integration of multiple correspondences into structure mappings—are minimal requirements, on top of basic dynamic binding, to realize symbolic thought. We tested this hypothesis in a systematic collection of 17 simulations that explored the ability of cognitive architectures with and without the capacity for multiplace predicates and structure mapping to perform various kinds of tasks. The simulations were as generic as possible, in that no task could be performed based on any diagnostic features, depending instead on the capacity for multiplace predicates and structure mapping. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that, along with dynamic binding, multiplace predicates and structure mapping are minimal requirements for basic symbolic thought. These results inform our understanding of how human brains give rise to symbolic thought and speak to the differences between biological intelligence, which tends to generalize broadly from very few training examples, and modern approaches to machine learning, which typically require millions or billions of training examples. The results we report also have important implications for bioinspired artificial intelligence.
KW - affordances
KW - artificial intelligence
KW - biological intelligence
KW - generalization
KW - symbolic thinking
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105034223072
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105034223072#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1037/rev0000592
DO - 10.1037/rev0000592
M3 - Article
C2 - 41213571
AN - SCOPUS:105034223072
SN - 0033-295X
JO - Psychological review
JF - Psychological review
ER -