This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Conceptual Blendirg and the Mindt Hidden Complexities
nn as *H
ffiffi fiffi #H
AMember of the Perseus BooksGroup
and MarkTirrner Copyright @ 2002 by GillesFauconnier BooksGroup, in2002. First publishedby BasicBooks,a memberof the Perseus edition publishedin 2003. First paperback of America.No part of this book may be Printedin the United States All rights reserved, exceptin the case of brief without written permission in any mannerwhatsoever reproduced BasicBooks, For information, address quotationsembodiedin critical articlesand reviews. South,NewYork,NY 10016-8810' 387 ParkAvenue Designedby Tlish \Tilkinson BooksGroup Setin 1l-point AGaramondby the Perseus edition asfollowsr the hardcover hascatalogued The Library of Congress Gilles. Fauconnier, / Gilles blendingand the mind's hidden complexities The way we think : conceptual Mark Tirrner. Fauconnier, P. cm. and index. references Includesbibliographical (pbk.) (hc.);ISBN 0-465-08786-8 ISBN 0-465-0s785-X 1. Concepts. 2. Thought and thinking. I.Tirrner, Mark, 1954- IL Title.
FIrrY THousAND YEARSAGo, more or less,during the Upper Paleolithic Age, our ancestorsbegan the most spectacularadvancein human history. Before that age,human beings were a negligible group of large mammals. After, the human mind was able to take over the world. \fhat happened? The archeological record suggests that during the Upper Paleolithic, humans developed an unprecedented abiliry to innovate. They acquired a modern human imagination, which gave them the abiliry to invent new concepts and ro assemble new and dynamic mental patterns. The results of this change were awesome: Human beings developed art, science, religion, culture, sophisticated tools, and language.How could we have invented these things? In this book, we focus on conceptualblending, a great mental capacity that, in its most advanced "double-s.op.'; form, gn r. Jru ancesrorssuperioriql and, for 'We better and for worse, made us what we are today. investigate the principles of conceptual blending, its fascinating dynamics, and its crucial role in how we think and live. Conceptual blending operates largely behind the scenes.\fle are not consciously aware of its hidden complexities, any more than we are consciously awareof the complexities of perception involved in, for example, seeing a blue cup. Almost invisibly to consciousness, conceptual blending choreographs vast net'works of conceptual meaning, yielding cognitive products that, at the conscious level, appear simple. The way we think is not the way we think we think. Everyday thought seemsstraightforward, but even our simplest thinking is astonishingly complex. The products of conceptual blending are ubiquitous. Students of rhetoric, literature, painting, and scientific invention have noticed many specific products of blending, each one of which, in isolation, seemed remarkable at the time, in its strange and arresting way. These scholars, ranging from Aristotle to Freud, took these specific instances to be exceptional, marginal eruptions of meaning, curious and suggestive.But none of them focused on the general mental capacityof blending or, as far aswe can tell, even recognized that there is such a mental capaciry. Attentive to the specific attraction-the painting, the poem, the dream, the scientific insight-they did not look for what all these bits and pieceshave in common. The spectacularftees masked the forest.
Our own work started with just such curious and suggestiveexamples. But by making precise their underlying principles, we began to get glimpses of an entire forest behind the trees. \(e discovered that the same cognitive operadsn-ssnceptual blending-plays a decisive role in human thought and action and yields a boundless diversiry of visible manifestations. This was an exciting but also shocking discovery, running as it does against 'We had certainly not set out to prove anything of much conventional wisdom. the sort. Rather, like Aristotle and Freud, and others lessillustrious in this tradirion, we began by looking at striking and, we thought, exotic examples of creativity, such as analogical counterfactuals, poetic metaphors, and chimeras like talking donkeys. By 1993, we had amassedoverwhelming evidence from many more fields-grammar, mathematics, inferencing, computer interfaces, action, and design. This launched a general researchprogram into the nature of conceptual blending as a basic mental operation, its structural and dynamic principles, and the constraints that govern it. Coming from a different angle and with very different kinds of data, several "creativity theorists" were speculating on the existence of a general mental cabrings together elpaciry-called "cognitive fuidiry' by Stephen Mithen-that linked the availabiliry of this emenrs of different domains. Mithen and others capac\ty to the explosion of creativiry in tool-making, painting, and religious to roughly 50,000 yearsago. practice, dated by archaeologists blending underlies and makes possiconceptual that we argue In this book, ble all these diverse human accomplishments, that it is responsible for the origins of language, art, religion, science,and other singular human feats, and that it is as indispensable for basic everyday thought as it is for artistic and scientific abilities. Above all, it is our goal to do what has not been done before: to explain the principles and mechanisms of concePtual blending.
Atr KN tr\^/LE D tri M E NTS ffiffi
RESEARcH IRESENTED in this book began in
1992-1993 at the Universiry of California, San Diego. Gilles Fauconnier was a member of the department of cognitive science,and Mark Turner was on leave from the Universiry of Maryland as a visiting scholar in the departments of cognitive science and linguistics. Mark Turner is grateful to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for fellowship support provided during that year and to the departments of cognitive scienceand linguistics at the University of California, San Diego, for their hospitaliry. He is additionally grateful to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciencesfor a fellowship year during 1994-1995 and the Institute for Advanced Study for a fellowship year during 1995-1997, periods in which this collaboration was continued. The writing of this book was conducted principally during L999-ZOO0, on the campus of Stanford University. Gilles Fauconnier is grateful for fellowship suPPort to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the American Philosophical Society, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where he was a Fellow, and the John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, which provided grant number 95-32005-0 to the Center. During 1999-2000, Mark Turner was a visiting scholar in the department of linguistics and the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. He is grateful to them for their support and hospitaliry. He is additionally grateful to the University of Maryland for the many assignments to research leave it has granted during this collaborarion. For exceptional overall support, encouragement, and the sharing of many insights, we are deeply indebted to Tina Fauconnier and Megan \Thalen Tirrner. We are also deeply grateful to Eve Sweetserfor her formidable and sustained contributions to blending researchand for detailed comments on the first draft of this book. Many friends and colleagueshave helped us along the way and have made significant contributions of their own to the conceptual blending researchprogram. They include Per Aage Brandt, Nannette Brenner, Marco Casonato, SeanaCoulson, Margaret Freeman, Joseph Grady, Jennifer Harding, Masako Hiraga, Doug Hofstadter, Ed Hutchins, Michael Israel, George Lakofe Nili Mandelblit, Shweta Narayan, Todd Oakley, Esther Pascual,Adrian Robert, Tim Rohrer, Vera Tobin, and Bob Williams.
\We jointly thank Jeff Elman and the Center for Researchin Language at the Universiry of California, San Diego, for technical support. \7e thank \fildlife Education, Limited, for permission to reprint the image of the dinosaur evolv\We thank Michelle Moore ing into a bird from Dinasaurs, an issueof Zaoboois. 'sfildlife Education, Limited, and Michael Gosnell of the UCSD Resources of 'We thank the Education Excellence Partnership of Center for their assistance. the BusinessRoundtable for permission to reprint the image of the Bypass advertisement. 'William Frucht, our editor at Basic Books, for \fle are especially grateful to his guidance and insight.
tr E NTE NTS
PART ENE: THE NETWERK MtrDEL I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The Age of Form and the Age of Imagination The Tip of the Iceberg The Elements of Blending On the \Vay to Deeper Matters Cause and Effect Vital Relations and Their Compressions Compressionsand Clashes Continuiry Behind Diversiry
PART TWT]: HI]\lV trENtrEPTUAL HUMAN BEINGS AND WHAT FER FER 9 The Origin BETTER BLENDINtri THEY ARE, WEREiE
39 59 75 89 LT3 r39
10 11 12 13 14 l5 L6 17 18
Things The Consffuction of the Unreal Identity and Characrer Category Metamorphosis Multiple Blends Multiple-Scope Creativiry Constitutive and Governing Principles Form and Meaning The \Way \7e Live
17I 195 217 249 269 279 299 309 353 389 397 405 415 423
,Motet RelErencet Furtler lmportant ln/ex
WorA on Conceptua/ B/en/ing
\We begin by presenting some examplesin which the blending is hard to miss. The Tip of the Iceberg Operations for the consrruction of meaning are powerful but for the most part invisible. formal manipulations needed to take for granted the operarions of a brain evolved over rhree billion years and trained throughout severalmonths of early individual life. in the secrion titled "The Iron Lady and the Rust Belt. Yet to achieve these remarkable results.This example-easy for humans ro . This was the cenrury of form approaches. complex.ffiffi ffiffi EVERVIEW EIY trHAPTER PART C]NE:THE NETwtrtRK MoDEL The Age of Form and the Age of Imagination We evoke some of the r'wentieth century's most noteworthy achievements:the magic of computers. and mostly unconscious operariens-x1s at the heart of even the simplest possiblemeanings." illustrates a rype of counterfactual reasoning that plays an important role in political science. Our theme is the basic mental operation we call conceptualblending. and imagination-basic. the discovery of the genetic code.The value of the simplest forms lies in the complex emergenr dynamics they trigger in the imaginative mind. Identiry integration.an impressive array of methods for discovering and manipulating meaning through systemaricanalysisof form. the broad application of the axiomatic method in the formal sciencesand of structuralism in the social sciences. These basic operarions are the key to both the invention of everyday meaning and exceptional human creariviry. mysterious. powerful. The first of these.
complex numbers in mathematics ("Crazy Numbers"). and the ceremony of collegegraduation ("Graduation")The Elements of Blending principles. mathematical thought. metabolism. Rituals of birth and marriage of cause depend on elegantand powerful comPressions in operate comPressions and effect. This is exactly what integration neworks allow them to do. decay-are not foretold in the principle that atoms combine to make molecules. especiallythe comPressionof cause and effect." Cause and Effect A deeperunderstanding of blending comes from the study of remarkable compressionsin conceptual integration networks. Other striking examplesof conceptual blending include computer interfaces("The Genie in the Computer"). so the marvelous systematic products of blendingarc not foretold in the principle that with emergent mental spacesblend to make new sPaces meaning. Equally powerful billboard advertising." and "The Bypass.xxx by Chapter Oueruiew of a hidden complexiry that understand. There is an entire system of interacting 89 39 59 75 . nuclear acids and bases. and Dante's Diuine Comedy. but possessed lies far beyond the capacitiesof today's most powerful compurers-is a remarkable feat of the imaginative dynamics of conceptual blending. which we Conceptual blending has constitutiue present in detail and illustrate by looking at the riddle of "The Buddhist Monk. Humans must simultaneouslycontrol long diffuse chains of logical reasoning and grasp the global meaning of such chains." On the \(t"y to Deeper Matters of conceptual blending in a variery of Some famous cases domains are "The Debate with Kant." "Regatta. Vital Relations and Their Compressions Just as the marvelous systematic products of chemistrycolors from titration. sexualpractices("The Image Club"). "The Skiing Waiter" shows how the same operations work to create emergent action.
and double-scope. Much of that systemconcernsconceptual compression. Time. singlescope. is an instrument of compressionpar excellence. r13 . four kinds stand out on a continuum of complexity: simplex. Continuity Behind Diversity Conceptual integration createsmenral products that often seem completely different from one anorher. and we musr grapplewith that enrire sysrem to explain any one of its products.These vital relations. not only apply acrossmental spacesbut also define essentialtopology within menral spaces.where a grear deal of conscious manipulation takes place. Compressions and Clashes Compression and decompressionof vital relations can produce spectacularexamples. Identiry Intentionaliry Represenration. double-scope creativiry is perhaps the most striking characreristicof our species.and partWhole." Yeats's In an elaborate rypology of nerworks. and literary discoveries and inventions. Compression in blending nerworks operareson a surprisingly small set of relations rooted in fundamental human neurobiology and shared social experience. One of the overarching goals of compression through blending is to achieve "human scale" in the blended space.Oueruiew fu Chapter principles behind the possibilitiesfor conceptual blending. which include Cause-Effect.This apparent dissimilariry misled previous thinkers into assuming that theseproducts must arise from difltrent menral capacities. Change.such as the scientific explanation of the biological evolution of the American pronghorn and the cultural notions of metempsychosis and reincarnation expressed poetically in William Butler "Fergus and the Druid. it turns out. artistic.1. Blending. At the high end of the continuum of blending complexiry double-scope nenvorks blend inputs with different (and often clashing) organizing frames to produce creative emergent frame structure in a blended space. mirror. Indeed. xr1.Double-scopeblending is what we typically find in scientific.
make models. with teach each other how to use them.'W'e offer a solution to that riddle: All these singularities have the same source. and inventive forms of music and dance. science. Human beings pretend. speech. the evolution of the capaciry for double-scope blending. But in fact they all arise from the same mental operation. it is bizarre and pointless. graves. culture. fantasize. anthropological' and genetic evidence concerning the origin of cognitively modern human beings. religion. or modules. fashionsof dress.gaugesof all kinds. for example. \7hy? Consider the everyday wristwatch. There are systematicmapping schemes. consider alternatives. and make gifts of them.xiu by Chapter Oueruiew operations.cathedrals. L7r 10 Things 'We 195 make things.Our mental life depends in every way 2L7 . souvenirs. repair them.and sign. Logic and metaphor. This explanation is supported by recent archeological. As a thing in itself.tombs. that underlie ostensibly different concePtions and expressions. adorn ourselves them. exampleswe consider are timepieces. consult them. PART TWE: HEW CENtrEPTUAL BLENDINEi M A K E S H U M A N B E I N E i S \ ^ / H A TT H E Y A R E ' FER BETTER AND FOR WtrRSE The Origin of Language Human beings are unique in having language.art. caffy them. The fact that these singularities came upon the sceneduring the Upper Paleolithic presentsa major scientific riddle. refined tool use. Drawing on work by Edwin Hutchins on conceptual blending and material anchors. and propose hypotheses. imitate. delude.writing.and systematicways of combining them. equally deploy these systemsof mapping and blending. 1l The Construction of the Unreal deceive.mathematics. money. lie.simulate.we show how the things that populate human life are Props for our Some of the double-scopeconceptual integration nenarorks. yet the wristwatch is a material anchor for a fascinating conceptual blend.
and carseare actually blend strucrures. uendetta.In fact. 12 Identity and Character Our notions of who and what we are depend upon conceprual integration. Among our human mental tricks is the routine blending of t'wo different identities. I would quit." Certain very powerful human conceprs. In particular. Multiple Blends Conceptual integration always involves a blended space and at least two inputs and a generic space. Same-sex marriage. complex numbers. And some of the most infuential people are nonpeople who come into our lives through conceptual blending. as in "If I were you. we consider integration nerworks for anger. The conceptual blends of counterfactual thinking drive scientific thinking. The new category. . to a letter to the editor about abortion ('As an (Jnwanted Child Myself . We live in a counterfactual zoo of absent and negative things. Multiple-Scope Creativity This chapter explores the remarkable conceptual creativiry that arisesin multiple-scope integration neworfts. Category Metamorphosis Human beings frequently transform categories. 249 13 269 14 279 15 299 . ro an acrobatic political jeer ("The stork dropped George Bush on third basewith a silver spoon in his mourh"). The exampleswe consider here range from a newspaper column about the politics of health care (titled "Dracula and His Patients"). Blending can also apply repeatedly:The product of blending can become the input ro a new operation of blending. can have radically emergenr structure.regainingor restzring honon uengeance. ").such aspersonal redemption.although linked to the old one. and computer uirus are all examplesof category metamorphosis.Oueruiew by Chapur on counrerfactual thinking. and the central engine of such thinking is conceptual integration. it can operate over any number of mental spacesas inputs. .
ideas and such a panorama of wildly different human behaviorsraisesa question: Does anything go? On the contrary. redemption. Expressions conceptualintegration patterns. Pattern Completion. One set of governing principles has to do with Topology. double-scope-arise repeatedly becausethey provide a packaged.In this chapter. mirror. fifry thousand years are consequences ago.theselimitations provide power to the Process.grammar.Intensification of Vital Relations. rwo-edged swords. the degree to which a blend promPts for its own Unpacking.'We use them to Prompt 353 . singleintegration conceptual scope.Interestingly. and the ascription of Relevanceto elements in a blend.all-at-once way to satisfy the governing principles. Yet another set of governing principles has to do with the compression of complicated conceptual networks into a single blend at human concePtual scale. and trashcan basketball. we also review the overarching goals of conceptual 'We then show how conventional kinds of integration. Maximization of Vital Relations. complex numbers. Integration. Cognitively modern human beings use conceptual integration to innovate-to create rich and diverse conceptual worlds that give meanings to our livesworlds with sexual fantasies.maintenance of the Veb of links in an integration nerwork. corporate feuds. networks-simplex. conceptual integration operatesnot only according to a clear set of constitutive principles but also according to an interacting set of governing principles. 309 L7 Form and Meaning Language and other complex human expressiveabilities of the development. lottery depression. r6 Constitutive and Governing Principles This is a theoretical chapter in which we examine how human mental powers for double-scoPecreativity are limited and governed. But personalidentity.xu1. of the uniquely human capaciry for advanced are PromPts for conceptual integration. by Chapter Oueruiew death.
18 The'WayVe Live \7e conclude with a considerarion of the central role of conceptual blending in the way we learn. language arosethrough cultural evolution in cultural time as opposed to evolutionary time. Once double-scope blending became available to human beings.Oueruiew by Chapter other people to perform conceprual integrations. xulx 389 . and the way we live. the way we think.
THE WAY WE THINK .
ffiffi ffiffi Part One TH E NETWtrRK MtrDEL .
\We buy groceriesby having our credit cards scanned.One ffiffi THE THE AEiE trIF FERM AEiE EF AND IMAEiINATITN It is far more useful to view computational science as part of the problem. . By the magic of such transformations. music. Life in all its richness and complexiry is said to be fundamentally explainable as combinations and recombinations of a finite generic code.Serialistcomposerschoosetheir notes according to mathematical principles. The solution. Noam Chomsky. . \7e eat genetically engineeredcorn. we announce births and send wedding congratulations and buy guns on the Internet. will be found by looking inside ourseives. we hear. algorithmically driven machines when our brains do not operate in this way. David Hilbert. if it ever comes. sometimes even music. JacquesMonod. the arts. The problem is understanding how humans can have invented explicit.'Werner Heisenberg. the picture of your newborn baby becomes a . In mathematics.John von Neumann. physics. rarher than the solution. . Claude Ldvi-Strauss. AtrHILLES AND HIS ARMER All of these wonders come from systematic manipulation of forms. human knowledge and its progressseem ro have been reduced in startling and powerful ways to a marrer of essential formal structuresand their transformations. The practical products of this triumph are now parr of our daily life and culture. not only in mathematics but also in economics. they might replace us. Norbert'Wiener. and the social sciences.Our taxesare determined by formulas invented by demographersand economists. The heroes of this age have been Gottlob Frege. Herbert Simon. The axiomatic method rules. If they just get faster at it. linguistics. Igor Stravinsky.'Weclone sheep.The magic of compurers is the speedy manipulation of ls and 0s. Alan Turing. -Merlin Donald \78 rrvp rN THE age of the triumph of form.
not Achilles himself. revealed how shaky the foundations of mathematics had been for centuries. Noam Chomsky.hool is now often seen as largely a matter of learning how to do such manipulation. by the same kind of systematic analysis. A college student enrolled in economics.A picture is worth a thousand ls and 0s. Most impressive. Madimir Propp gave formal structures aPplicable to all Russian folktales. If she hopes to become a psychologist. what the tojans first saw was the spectaculararmor. Roman Jakobson and others used as their primary method of literary analysisthe investigation of formal relationships among the sounds. Many of these efforts were controversial. and they naturally assumed it was Achilles. The manipulation of form is so powerful and useful th"t . and were terrified. the armor is indispensable-without it even Achilles would fail. the recipe til7hen Achilles to battle the tojans.rp and others. but our century has seen enormous energy devoted to the discovery and manipulation of meaning through systematic analysisof form.THe 'Wav \flp THtNx long string of ls and 0s. will now spend considerabletime manipulating formulas. In our cenrury. and so the armor by itself looked as if it was turning the battle. Formal approacheslead us not only to reconceivehard problems but also to ask new quesrions previously inconceivable or inexpressible. and indeed. and orthography of the work. thereby compelling psychologists to abandon simple associativemodes of explanation. But it didn't take long for the tojans to discover that it was just Achilles's armor. of Patroclos donned the armor rain on us. once a branch of ethics. On the other The blueprint is not the tells us that form is not substance: hand.thereby using form to analyzeitself. Claude Ldvi-strauss showed how ostensibly diflerent myths shared meaning in virtue of having a sharedstructure. These approachescould lead us to think that scientific knowledge is only a matter of finding deep hidden forms behind ostensible forms. Form carriesmeaning with no loss. Kurt Godel. The gods .once firmly the province of humanists and philologists. and vice versa. The Bourt"ki gro. common sense of weather does not simulation computer the dish.lgorithms. she will learn formal . If she studies language. and their students revealed that linguistic form is astonishingly complex and difficult to account for. we often look at form the way the Tlojans looked at the armor. rhyrhms.she must become adept at consrrucring compurarional models.Systematicstudy by Zelig Harris. not the is house. The powerful and deeply meaningful image appearstherefore to be the same as a bunch of ls and 0s.. and then they had no pity. by recasting mathematical questions into purely formal schemes such as Godel numbering. They are transmitted electronically over thousands of miles and turned back into the same picture on the other end. Abstract expressionismcame to seethe height of meaning as carried by the intersections and juxtapositions of form. showed inherent limits on proofs within axiomatic systems.
math. the picture. Or rather. we cannor suppress our feeling that we are seeing a baby. as we argue in this book. Form does not presenr meaning but instead picks out regularities that run throughout meanings. For example. Form prompts meaning and must be suited to its task. they cannot help feeling that they are standing before the fesh-and-blood Achilles. Clearly the miracles accomplished by the armor depend on the invisible warrior inside. just as the armor ofAchilles had to be made to his size and abilities. Even when they know that Eliza is an empry suit of armor. Like the Tiojans. Even when they know the program's tricks. becausehe was the best warrior. music. the two-dimensional arrangement of colors in the photograph has almost nothing in common with a baby. The illusion that meaning is transmitted when we send the digitized picture over the Internet is possible only becausethere is a brain on each end to handle the construction of meaning. we take the construction of meaning fot granted. The forms are especially impressive becausethey . But having the armor is never having Achilles. "Gll me more" is a catch-all production of the machine that easily fits into almost any real conversation. \When we seea picture of the newborn baby. art) becausethey have the mosr effective abilities for the construction of meaning. Achilles got the best armor. Becausethe brain does this instantly and unconsciously. they cannot suPpressthe urge to feel that Eliza is manipulating meanings and that the meanings are causing the expressionsit produces. we in the twenry-first century have come to realize that the miracles of form harnessthe unconscious and usually invisible powers of human beings to construct meaning. In fact. human beings have the most elaborate forms (language. Form is the armor. when in fact it is being actively consrrucred by staggeringly complex mental operations in the brain of the viewer. and to be useful at all. but meaning is the Achilles that makes the armor so formidable. having the form-and indeed even the intricate transformations of forms (all those 1s and Os)-is never having the meaning to which the form has been suited. we tend to take the meaning as emanating from its formal representation. but they take the power of the warrior for granted. made by Hephaestos.TheAge of Form and theAgeof Imagination 5 may put considerable effort into making superior armor for the mortals. This illusion takes nothing awayfrom the technological feat of transmitting the picture-just as the Thojans took nothing away from the divine technological feat of constructing Achilles' armor-but the picture still needsthe human brain just as the armor still needs the human warrior. and it takes a brain evolved over three billion years and trained through severalmonrhs of early life to construct the identiry between the picture and the baby. People who encounter Eliza are amazed to find that they cannot help feeling they are taking paft in a rich human conversation. The famous computer program"Elizi'cleverly deliverscanned responses on the basisof superficial word matches to questions and starementsmade by a real human being. the armor must be suited to the warrior. Just so.
and mostly unconscious-are at the heart of even rhe simplest possible meaning. sameness. mysterious.can be unleasheddynamically and imaginatively to make sense. We will argue rhat these basic operarions are more generally the key to both everyday meaning and exceptional human creativiry.But identiry and opafter elaborate position are finished products provided to consciousness neurobiologically. what is behind form is not a thing at all but rather the human power to construct meanings. The products of conceptual blendin g are always imaginative and creative. These oPerations-basic. are apprehensiblein consciousness vided a natural beginning place for form approaches. In investigaring identiry integration. Imagination.Identiry and integration cannot account for meaning and its Even development without the third 1of the human mind-imagination. no matter the circumstances. . what-if scenarios. imaginative. simulaimaginative run can brain the stimulus. Finding identities and oppositions is part of a much more complicated processof conceptual integration. In particular. . but which in the backstage of rypically goes entirely unnoticed since it works fast cognition.A = A. in the absenceof external tions. complex. is taken for granted in form approaches.is in fact a spectacularproduct of complex. they are or evolutionarily. the chestnuts of the form approaches. points. Identicy and opposition. The theme of this book is what the form approacheshave assumedas given: the operations of identiry integration. as it turns out. \flhat is in the armor is not a thing at all but a potential force that. can be unleashed dynamically and imaginatively upon the Tlojans to lethal effect. and imagination.TUE W'ev \78 THINr have been suited to the meanings they prompt. which has elaboratestructural and dynamic properties and operational constraints. powerful. Integration. crucially-even rhe most basic forms. no matter the circumstances.But the imaginative processes seemingly exceptional casesare in fact always at work in even the simplest construcrion of meaning. Inside the armor is not more armor. Just so. equivalence. . which Identit)t The recognition of identiry. We will show that they are the key to the invention of meaning and that the value of even the simplest forms lies in the complex emergenr dynamics they trigger in the imaginative mind. Surprisingly-but. but on their own the forms are hollow. starting not primitive work. cognitively.are prompts for massiveimaginative integration. we will return rePeatedly to certain themes: . Some of these are obvious: fictional stories. unconsciouswork. we detect in these dreams. meaning is not another kind of form. It. too. sameand so have proness and difference. and imagination. erotic fantasies.
invariably. picking up a cup. form ran up against the mysteries of meaning.we find this recognition problem listed under "conceptual categorizatLon. Although brute-force statistics has often provided improved performance. making the analogy berween your mommy and your mommy's mommy-turned out to be diabolically hard to model. on paper or silicon. As more and more effort and money were devoted to solving these problems. the topology of the handle. which leads us to see forms as carrying far more meaning than they actually do. it would be childt play for them to account for much more rudimentary things like child speechor navigating a new room or seeinga simple analogy. naturally encouraged people to develop these approachesas far as they would go in fields like artificial intelligence. machine locomotion-became entire fields. But evolution turned our ro be far more powerful than the logicians could conceive. combined with the E|iza effect. combining a noun and an adjective. Learning and development had looked like unfortunate primitive aspects of evolutionary systems.and psychology. researchers developed not the expected solutions but a deep respectfor their intractabiliry.who looked incomPetent and bumbling. As neurosciencehas shown. Problems that were supposed to take a few years at most-machine translation.TheAge of Form and theAgeof Imagination Identiry integration. It was natural to think that if form approachescould handle apparently hard things like chessand the Goldbach conjecture.\7hat could be simpler than recognizing that a tree is a tree?Yet when we look at works in cognitive neuroscience. telling the difference bet'weenin and out. doomed to long and tedious processes of learning even that a shoe is a shoe. turned out to be incomparably more capablethan anphing form approachescould offer. machine vision. But not so. \flhat looked simplest-seeing a line. the many aspectsof the cup of 6effss-1he color of the cup. In fact." Apparently simpler still would be the simple recognition of a single entiry aswhen we look at a cup of coffee and perceivethe cup of coffee. extremely difficult questions in cognitive neuroscience. the smell of the coffee.Human babies. the dividing line berween the coffee . Yet. the situation is graver than this."already regarded as a higher-order problem. linguistics. the texture of the surfaceof the cup. the shape of the opening. which the more powerful and preciseinstruments of formal manipulation would simply leap over. cybernetics. Phenomena thar were once nor even perceived as problems at all have come to be regarded as central. and imagination-the of this book. beyond the already difficult feat of "perceptual categorization. many take the view that in such cases the form approacheshave nor improved our understanding of the conceptual processes at work. / mind's threeIs-are the subject GHINKS IN THE ARMER The spectacular success of form approaches in many domains.
for example. into entities at human scale so that we can manipulate them in human lives. the heavy feel of the cup in the hand. mathematics. not from our mental work. gave a sharp and infuenrial analysis of special areasof human knowledge in which precise formal operarions can be of some help. Our own research. our brains and bodies work to give it that status.developed in this book. the taste of the coffee." \7e do not ask ourselves how we can see one thing as one thing becausewe assume that the uniry comes from the thing itself. including botany. we are now turning to the investigation of the fundamental nature of meaning on which form relies. the reaching for the cup. The generalizedElizaeffect leads us to thinkthe form is causing our perception of uniry but it is not. and so on. he noticed that there are certain patrerns of language that preserve or change meanings in . the combination of three billion years of evolution and several months of early training have resulted in the apprehension of unities in condoes not know the details of that unification. we will show that these apparenrly simple mental events are the outcome of great imaginative work at the cognitive level. just as we assume that the meaning of the picture is in the picture rather than in our interpretation of its form. The next step in the study of mind is the scientific study of the nature and mechanisms of the imagination."1rr. \7e seethe coffee cuP as one thing be\We divide the world up . Like the neuroscientist considering the perception of the coffee cuP. in a number of different fields-art. cartoons. Frogs and bats. In particular. will focus on a wide array of ostensibly quite diflerent phenomena in the consrruction of meaning. for example. These chinks in the armor of form show us that elements of mental life that look like primitives for formal analysisturn out to be higher-order products of imaginative work. we apprehend one thing Asone thinghas come to be regarded as a central problem of cognitive neuroscience. grammar. the generation of species.and ethics. counterfactuals.called the "binding problem. and there is no single site in the brain where these various apprehensions are brought together. in surveying the scope of human knowledge. How can the coffee cup. How but neuroscience sciousness. be so many different things and operarions for the neuroscientist looking at the unconscious level?Somehow. literature.Trtr 'W'av Wp Tnrxr and the cup. divide the world up in ways quite different from ouf own. and so on and on-are apprehended and processeddifferently in anatomically different locations. and this division of the world is an imaginative achievement. so obviously a single thing for us at the conscious level. BAtrK TE ARIsTtrTLE The view we rake here-that form approachesare a special kind of capaciry as useful to the imaginative human being as armor is to the great ryx11is1-has a long and honorable tradition. Having investigated form with an array of instruments. Aristotle.
Rudolph Carnap's herculean efforts to develop inductive logic were remarkably helpful in highlighting unexpected complexities of reasoning. centuries-long process.TheAge of Form and theAgeof Imaginatizn 9 systematicways that depend on parts of speechbut not on the specific nouns or adjectiveswe pick. The pursuit of this goal brought in mathematics as well as physics. including sex." Aristotle's observation and systematization are the seedfor all the approachesthat we have been referring ro as "form approaches. In these fields. \With the explosive development of the form approachesar rhe beginning of the twentieth century. For example. therefore C is 8. pursuit of the goal again brought out great and often unperceived complexity of problems. the prevailing view is still that correlation of meaning and form is highly desirablebut not found in so-called messy. Aristotle's syllogism is a formal. but not effective solutions.Some forms assistmeaning consffuction much more effectively than others.but the successes were not as clear. war. nothing depends on Socrates or man or mortal. and. fuzzy. advanced by thinkers like Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert."Their power lies in the reliabiliry of symbolic or mechanical manipulations that preservetruth no matter how involved the manipulation. is to construct artificial languagesthat have rigorous and reliable form-meaning correlations. Russell. nor whether what we say is true. Socrates Therefore. "The advance in algebra that proved far more significant for its development and for analysis than the technical progressof the sixteenth century was rhe introduction of better symbolism. . chemistry. Neither Aristotle nor any of his successors in the analysisof form considered this a general solution to the problem of knowledge. C is an A. These language patterns are of course the famous syllogisms of the rype: . is a man. The same goal became important in philosophy and the social sciences. As Morris Kline writes. but they did not lead to an all-unifyi"g logic.nontechnical natural systemslike language. scientific and mathematical progresswas accompanied by ever more formal sophistication. Clearly. ." k is a . logic. however. Here. Indeed. For example. a man known for expressingwhat he confidendy viewed as truths about nearly every human sphere.then. everyday. ffuth-preserving manipulation of meaning that we could also code as "All As are B." One fundamenral goal of these approaches. All men are mortal. this step made possible a science of algebra. comgreat success puter science. and religion. soft. nonethelesshad a stark view of formal mathematics: "Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about. The development of formal systemsto leveragehuman invention and insight has been a painful. Socratesis mortal. later.
the notation developedby Leibniz is incomparably more perspicuous. Just so. wrote P = 4x +32 x qdratudeqtur4 rebus Historically. thus ka from the word karana called for the square root of what followed. the development of armor was a long and effortful process. said. Cardan. the develoPment . was enough to classify Hindu algebra as almost symbolic and certainly more so than Diophantus' syncopated algebra. Hindu. Problems and solutions were written in this quasi-symbolic sryle. The initial letter of each word was also used as a symbol.10 THE '$7'nv \7E TurNr commonplace that no one who wants to learn differential and integral calculus will try to learn it through Newton's nearly impenetrable notation. In the rwelfth centuryz. the Hindu mathematician Bhaskara Arabic. the invention of mining and refining. Roman. they had words that denoted colors. and the evolution of all of the techniques and tools of the smith. blue. For the unknowns. the sum being squared and multiplied by the smaller irrational quantiry is the sum of the trvo surd roots. = . \j k l l-' t f t f-' \n at We can see rhe struggle involved in developing this formalism by looking moments of partial progress. Schoolchildren everywhere have little trouble learning to manipulate simple equationslike x + 7 = 15 or x = 15 7 or x = 8 or 8 = x. but developing this notation took the efforts of many mathematicians over centuries in many different cultures-Greek. yellow. and others. using the much more systematically manageable set of formal symbols shown below. This equation by itself looks no lessopaque than Bhaskarat description. . This symbolism.involving the discovery of metals. The first one was called the unknown and the remaining ones black. 2 . a dot over the subtrahend indicated subtraction." This we would now expressin the form of an equation.Once the appropriate forms are invented. Kline says of Hindu notation: There was no symbol for addition.r) P . . they are easily learnable. but the notation immediately connects it to a large system of such equations in ways that make it easy to manipulate. and so forth. p:32. other operations were called for by key words or abbreviations. when more than one was involved. though nor exrensive. For example. "The root of the root of the quotient of the greater irrational divided by the lesserone being increasedby one.[7. Similarly.
Formal systemsare not the same kind of thing as meaning sysrems. systemsof form and systems of meaning construction intertwine. But. like neuroscience.Like the warrior and the armor. and the swan is not a matter of resemblanceand shared features. Much of our effort in this book will go toward unraveling the complex ways in which forms prompt largely unconscious and unnoticed constructions of the imagination.has come to recognize that identiry sameness. meaning systems and formal systems are inseparable. PDP was widely acclaimed as a major advance in the understanding of cognition. so that it is not possible to view them as separable. Paul Smolenslcykapproach usestensor products.and in the developmental history of an individual person. and its merits were contrasted with shortcomings of the traditional symbolic approach. each aspect being necessaryfor the other. I N A T T O N As we noted earlier. and the individual. Psychologistsand cognitive scientistsat the Universiry of California-San Diego in the early 1980s developed the theory and implementations of parallel distributed processing (PDP). and difference. In the evolutionary descentof our species. so we emphasizethat form is not an ancillary or illusory aspect of the human mind. the advance in algebra in the sixteenth century was simultaneously conceptual and formal.nor are they small translation modules that sit on top of meaning sysremsto encode and decode work that is done independently by the meaning sysrems. THE MtND'5 THREE [t3-t DENT|TY. the Cloud-Gatherer (a role) is the "same" as Zeus (its value). startlingly for anyone who thinks identiry is simple or primitive. the bull. and Lokendra Shastri'sdepends on temporal synchrony. and in turn.the culture. For example.TheAgeof Form and theAge of Imagination II of formal systemsis an admirable tradition in the expansion of human knowledge. connectionist modeling. Zeus as a bull and Zeus as a god and Zeus as a swan are the same. and one that cultures do not get for free. They co-evolve in the species.As Kline points out. in the history of a science. But the sameness of the god. the binding problem-the problem of how we can perceptually apprehend one integrated thing-11^s its counrerparr in neurally inspired computational modeling. the major challenge for this new kind of modeling turned out to be capturing identities and linking roles to values. a remarkably successfulapproach to modeling cognitive phenomena. t M A E . t N T E t 3R A T T E N . and the exceptionally complex and technical solutions that have been proposed for it look nothing like an intuitive representarion of identity. far from . which used logic-like comPuter Programming languagesto try to represent cognitive phenomena. Even now rhis problem is by no means resolved. In short. Just as we have emphasizedthat the Eliza phenomenon involves seeing more in form than is there.
so that no one noticed the difficulry. By binding all these points.like the abiliry to perceive everyday identities."-. This logical form sets up a schema. A human being who understands the formula can then use it to discover particular truths by instantiating the properties p and q for a specific thing or individual. we create an integrated object: the line. what initially seemed easy and primitive. . for the purpose of the direction. The lumping together of points as the "same" is a mental achievement that createsan integrated object. human beings who ran the procedureshandled the problems unconsciously. "Choose a point in the plane such that x = 1" asks us ro lump together. a logical formula like Vx. p(x) =. Consider. and although it usesthe samex. and often fail. Understanding the room you are in by comparing it with tVe find such an analogy trivial rooms you already know is an everyday analogy. Yet the ability to perceive everyday analogies. What the real binding allows a real brain to do is to apply the general schemabehind the logical formula to particular things and individuals and to keep track of when they count as the same and when they count as different. are now recognizedas formidable feats of imaginative work to which the current state of compurarional modeling cannot do justice. finding the common schematic structure that motivates an analogy beween them. Only the "obvious" solu(and because consciousness tion to this analogy comes into consciousness. ir's a different line. for example. q(x). the exturned out to be extraordinarily complex. In fact. too. individual who has prope rty P also has ProPerry q? He knows it because the identical letter x has been used in the formula. How does the human being know that . but present-day robots waste a lot of time trying to get out of . are the major and perhaps least tractable problems involved in modeling the mind. plicit characterizationof sameness. Here. A related areaof researchthat has undergone tremendous develoPment is the study of analogy. that provide the solution run outside of the complex cognitive processes because "everybody can do it!"). we hardly even recoghave no awareness nize that there was a problem to be solved.h. an entire set of points as equivalent. according to which anything with prcpefiy p has properry q. Becausewe of the imaginative work we have done.12 TH r ' W av \7E TutN r being easy primitives. extracting cube roots is extremely easyto model comis no work putationally. But that formal identiry itself is not itself a binding. Why didnt the form approachesrun up earlier against these extremely diffiand difference?The quick answer is that cult problems of identiry sameness. .o--on at all. it is only a prompt for real binding to occur in the mind of the interpreter of the form. It seemslike no work at all.oo^r. In view. "Choose a point in the plane such that x = -1" asks us to do the same. Matching and aligning the elements of two domains.and quietly at that. . is completely taken for granted by human beings at the conscious level. taking cube roots is hard but finding the door out of a room ih.
in the guise of formal manipulation. Perceivedanalogy will be a by-product of that system. In production system approaches such as generarive gralnmar. This marvelous capacity for binding turns out to depend on very sophisticated cognitive and neurobiological processes. this similarity falls out not from an explicit analogical mapping between the two specific sentencesbut from their sharing a common part of a syntactic derivation. Analogical mapping per seis not part of the theoretical apparatus. even if unwittingly.So. but have suffered from not being able to bring in yet more analogl'. Conversely. In such theories. analogiesare replacedby structural identities at hidden levels. we are equally able to use the very same perceptual evidence to distinguish "rwo" "wine boffles. by contrast.In fact. so thar what looks like an analogy at one level is treated as a superficial by-product of structural identiry at a deeper level.But becausethe form approachestake identities for granted. "I was born in 1954" prompts us to bind an infant in 1954 with an adult living many decadeslater as the "same. they have no identical parts." despite the manifest and pervasivedifferences. analogy. the view of formal linguistics has been that fie learning of grammar does not involve analogical mapping. not one of its theoretical concepts nor. Rather. I would wear a black dress"promprs us to bind the "I" and the "yo*" with respec to some aspectsbut not others. In form approaches.identiry is taken for granted.And "If I were you. the apprehensionof the structural identities is not seenas posing any problem." to all appearances identical and yet nor rhe "same" object. As an instance of the smuggling in of analogy. ."Chaucer's London bore no resemblanceto the London of today'' allows us to construct and keep seParate rwo cities that we know to be the "same" from another perspective. consider the relationship between "Paul loves M^ry' and "John kicks Jo. paradoxically.\7e are disposed ro construct objects and preserveidentities. is rypically not even recognized.. so ar least at the most obvious level.aswe noted. although the child may be equipped with vast analogical capacities in all kinds of domains.in prompting these integrations." They sharenot a single word. Yet we recognize instantly that they are similar in form. we effortlessly and unconsciously bind together all these events as involving a single wine bottle. Analoglt thus seemsto be dispensable. take their cue from human perceptual and conceptual systems.TheAgeof Form and theAge of Imagination 13 Formal approaches. surprisingly. so that although we hold and move and seeand feel "the wine bottle" in many different situations. the form approacheshave been forced to smuggle in some anaIory. there are typically hidden layers of structure. a means for the child to apprehend that system. How can this be?The answer is that analogy is smuggled in as part of the formal system through a number of back doors. In form approaches.nor is it viewed as part of the child's learning apparatus. to learn the grammar is to induce a production system (the formal grammar) on the basisof innate a priori constraints (the universal grammar).
the artist. analogy was contemptuously reduced to the status of fuzzy thinking and mere intuition. The results left little doubt that analogy. however. and the child. analogy had lost status as an important scientific topic and was ridiculed as a merhod of discovery and explanation. affect and metaphor-made a roaring comeback. narrative thinking. visual imagination. and. like Roger Mental images made a comeback for similar reasons:Researchers Shepard and Stephen Kosslyn developed clever experimental techniques for invesrigaring visual perception. was intricate. This technique is what we described earlier as looking for more armor inside the armor. New modeling techniques. But toward the end of the I970s. Analogy seemed to have none of the precision found in axiomatic systems. There were many convergent reasonsfor this comeback. The absurdiry would come from assuming that the only thingthat can lie behind a form is yet another form. for the scientist.rule-based production systems. rhe marhematician. In the age of form. The same story began to be repeated:\fhat was easiestfor human beings to accomplish with no thought at all turned out to be far harder to model than chessand other seemingly difficult mental tasks. \(hen these new and powerful systemscame to be viewed as the incarnation of scientific thinking.provided both better and more realistic models of analogical thinking and more precise insights into its real complexities. highly promising feature of form approachessuch as invisible levels generative grammar was the possibiliry of postulating successive of form (such as deep structure. But as the limits of the formal line became apparent. exactly becauseit could now be modeled along formal lines. it was recognized that analogy posed a formidable challenge to both the modeler and the experimental psychologist. . Mental images were suddenly viewed as respectablescientific phenomena with surprising complexiry. Analogy became respectableagain as a phenomenon. most unpalatable of all to the formally minded. Analogy has traditionally been viewed as a powerful engine of discovery.14 TH p W ev \7s TFrrxr A powerful and. and their relationship. In itself it is not as absurd as it sounds-a warrior could have additional protection under his topsuit of armor.as a cognitive operation. and fundamental. it fell into disrepute. The absenceof formal mechanisms for analogF was mistakenly equated with a supposed absenceof analogy itself as a fundamental cognitive operation. powerful. mental images. at first.or algorithmic systems. First. most notably connectionist systems. At the high point of the popularity of rule-based systems. or logical form) behind the superficial appearances.Mysteries of formal organization at one level would thus be explained in rerms of regularities at a higher one. analogy came to be seriously studied by psychologistswhose methodologies included both clinical experimentation and computer modeling. analogy and its disreputable compxnien5-metonymy. and hidden layers of form are a plausible explanatory technique.
reason.humor. since it is the central engine of meaning behind the most ordinary menral evenrs. clever methodologies were invsnlsd-for investigating metaphoric thought in very young children. goes the logic. the part of meaning that can be characterized formally and truth-conditionally. and the simplest mental events in everyday life. and leavefew formal rraces of their complex dynamics. mathematics. choice. decision. planning. for discovering regularities in metaphoric expression acrossfamilies of languages. and imagination-and they all work inextricably together. magic and ritual. however. it must be the only important and fundamental part of meaning." Core meaning is. and for analying the role of metaphor in both sign languageand nonverbal communication systemslike gesture. the new disposition of cognitive scientists to find connections acrossfields has revived interest in the basic menral powers underlying dramatically difFerent products in different walks of life. Inevitably. Therefore. these analytic approaches were blind to the imaginative operations of meaning consrrucrion that work at lightning speed. and we will see it at work as a basic mental operation in language. the powerful role of metaphor in scientific discovery artistic creativiry and childhood learning. Their complex interaction and their mechanisms are the subject of this book. Of course.TheAge of Forrnand theAgeof Imagination 15 Linguists and philosophers made a powerful case for the centraliqy of metaphor in human cognition. and. The mind is not a Cyclops. but that acceptance was entirely canceledduring the ascendanq of form approaches. traditional lines of inquiry before this century had often accepted. its uniry as a general missed. art.' it has three-identiry integration. What analytic philosophers gloated over now was the complete exclusion of figurative thought from "core meaning.even gloated over. \7e will focus especially on the nature of integration. as the formally minded philosopher seesit. it has more than one 1. As we continue to see. capacity had been Now.science.work in a number of fields is converging toward the rehabilitation of imagination as a fundamental scientific topic.below the horizon of consciousness.for teasing out complexities of metaphoric comprehension by human subjects. . action.judgment. again. Becauseconceprual integration presents so many different apPearances in different domains.
regardiess of whether it is spectacular and noticeable or conventional and unremarkable. we saw. of the sort we do when reading a simple sentence. Aristotle says both that metaphor is "the hallmark of genius" and that "a11 people carry on their conversationswith metaphors.t"l cognitive operation and the different levels of skill with which it is used by different people. that the mind of the genius differs from that of the averageperson. Similarly. Analogical thinking. gen. which shows the influence of both ancestor ideas without being a mere "cut-and-paste" combination? -Margaret Boden CouptoN sENSE succEsrs rHAT people in difltrent disciplineshave different ways of thinking. A further demonstration of commonaliry is the complexity of commonplace t7 . These are the kinds of powerful but for the mosr part invisible operations we will be interestedin." He is not offering aparadox but instead recognizing the distinction between the existenceof rh.is far beneath the imaginative thinking that goes on during the writing of a poem. Commonalities acrossthese divisions have been widely recognized. the everyday conversationalist. and that automaric thinking. that the adult and the child do not think alike.Conceptual framing has been shown to arise very early in the infant and to operate in everysocial and conceptual domain. These commonsensedistinctions are unassailable. regarded in ihe commonsenseview as a specialinstrument of art and rhetoric. modern language sciencehas shown that there are universal cognitive abilities underlying all human languagesand shared by the adult and the child. Metaphoric thinking. operaresat every level of cognition and shows uniform structural and dynamic principles.has lately become a hot topic in cognitive science. yet there exist general operations for the construction of meaning that cut acrossall these levels and make them possible.ffiffi mffi Two THE TIP EF THE ItrEBERtri How can rwo ideas be merged to produce a new structure. and the child. The various schemesof form and meaning studied by rhetoricians can be used by the skilled orator.
for the most part. the mind seemsto have only feeble abilities to reP1.. blending is an but.we ignore these common oPerations in everydaylife and seem reluctant to investigate them even as objects of scientific inquiry.discovered countered extreme difficulry in their afiempts to model it explicitly.r. displays exacrly becausethey are invisible." . Framing. .It was common ro encounter claims that what the United Statesneeded was a Margaret Thatcher. analogy. it is unnoticed. which we also call conceptualblending. i. and degreeof expertise. \Thatever the reason. Perhaps the forming of these important mechanisms early in life makes them Even more interestingly.Conceptual integration. and they cut acrossdivisions of discipline. and conscious attention would interrupt that fow. by walking through a few easyexam\What is important in these examples ples in which the blending is hard to miss. It shows the expectedproperties of speedand invisibiliry. and common mental abilities could go unrecognized for so long. it may be part of the evoluinvisible to consciousness.. and commonsense reasoning all play a role in this uncon. Even after training. striking. metaphor.This limit presenrsa difficulry to professional cognitive scientists. in the evolution of the species. The responsewe are interested in is "But Margaret Thatcher would never get elected here becausethe labor unions cant stand her. social level. unconscious activity involved in every asPectof human life.io. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher-known Iron Lady-had great populariry among certain factions in the United States. These basic mental operations are highly imaginative and produce our conscious awarenessof identiry sameness.One reason for the limit is that the operations we are talking about occur at lightning speed. rurns our ro cut acrossthinking at all levels and all ages. is another basic mental operation. so much their content as their manifestation of the process. presumably becausethey involve distributed spreading activation in the nervous system.It is crucial not \7e have chosen them as opening to be misled by their exceptional appearance.r. THE IREN LADY AND THE RUST BELT as the In the early 1990s. age. highly imaginative but crucial to even the simplest kinds of thought. production of apparently simple recognitions.18 TH E \fav \7r TH rN r in artificial intelligenceunexpectedlyenwhen researchers reasoning.". This extraordinary complexiry previously associatedonly with highly expert thought. grammar.r.ro. mechanisms that they should be invisible to conthese of tionary adaptiveness just as the backstagelabor involved in putting on a play works best if sciousness. Our goal in this chapter is to convey a feel for how conceptual blending works.but it may be a desirable f.rr. It might seem srrange that the systematiciry and intricacy of some of our mosr b"ti.and difference.. to itself consciously what the unconscious mind does easily..
so we feel that we seethe analogy becausethere is an analogy to be seen-that is. in the imaginative blended scenario.S. electoral politics. but not by presidentof the United States. But analogy theorists and modelers have discovered. voters.S.S. the British voters correspond to the U. After a blend has been constructed. Thatcher. even . she is nor a citizen of the United States. such as one in which a particular vice-presidentis viewed as having all the real power behind a figureheadpresident. the analogies-seem to be objectively part of what we are considering. In the blend. to their dismay. almost nothing like the American union of stateswith its electoral college. For example.S. who is running fot the office of is alreadyhated by U.This point is made by setting up a situation (the "blend") that has some characteristicsof Great Britain. presidenu the labor unions correspond to the labor unions. from one perspective. Just as we feel that we see the coffee cup for the simple reasonthat there is a coffee cup to be seen.and she has no apparent interest in running. Rather. the queen of England might be the natural. immediate countetpart of the president of the United States. In the historical situation. The speaker's point. In a different context. they already hate her and therefore will prevent her election.achievements. Crucially.The Tip of the Iceberg 19 Thinking about this requires bringing Margaret Thatcher together with U. the point of this reasoning has nothing ro do with the objective fact that it is impossible for Margaret Thatcher to be elected. to be perceived direcdy and immediately with no effort. labor unions.and some properties of its own. some characteristics of the United States. the correspondences-the identities. the hatred of Thatcher is projected into the imaginative blended scenario from the original British history in which (quite different) British labor unions hate her becauseshe was head of state and dealt with them harshly. The British padiamentary sysrem is. are quite different in their cultural and political institutions and will not choose the same kinds of leaders. the analogy looks obvious: The British prime minister correspondsto the U. the United Kingdom corresponds to the United States. but not becauseof anphing she has previously done to them. \7e must imagine Thatcher running for president in the United States and develop enough structure to see the relevant barriers to her being elected. obvious. is that the United Statesand Great Britain. Entire books have been written on the radical differencesberween labor unions in the United Statesand those in Britain. nor something we have constructed mentally. virtue of any experienceconnected with the United Statesor its unions. the similarities. since in the real world she is already head of another state. that finding matches is an almost intractable problem.as we can seeby considering that in slightly different circumstanceswe would construe all these counrerparts as strong oppositions. \flhat could be simpler? But in fact these correspondences are imaginative.and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the equivalent of the vice-president. Thatcher had to be elected before she could earn the labor unions' hatred. After we have understood all this. right or wrong. despite their obvious similarities.
For example. after the fact. Somehow we have to invent a scenario that draws from the rwo analoguesbut ends up containing more. although this would be expected of an actual presidential hopeful. situation on the one hand and the real British situation on the other.S. A little matching helps the blend run.S.S.Somehow.But the blend has this novel invention. The unconscious mind gives it. Margaret Thatcher is defeated. Or the import might be that the United Statesis luclcy to have labor unions sufficiently vigilant to ensurethat what happened to the British unions will never happen to them. by working inside the blend. That structure is not "rhere" in the analogues. For example. a Margaret Thatcher campaigning in Illinois and Michigan and hated by the U.an outcome not in any way contained in the two analogues. findi. politics. The blend ends up making possible a set of "matches" that seem obvious to us. Nobody knows how people do it. she does not then endorse another candidate.S.'We cannot run the blend in just any way. inferencesthat arisethrough the creation of new meaning in the blend can project back to the rwo real situations.ih. up and use this blend. but must somehow run it in the way that is relevant to the purpose at hand. even though it corresPondsto no prior realiry or experience.S. To r.r the match gives you what you need for the blend.because *h. that look as if they are objectively there reIn fact." constructions. election translatesinto a quite practical comment on real U. even though it has never been run before. The import of this disaniloy might be that although the United States may need a cerrain kind of leader.which is already an awesometask.the intricacies of U..tg the matches. and running the blend helps us find matches. Somehow.S.Becausethe imaginadve blended scenariois connected to the real U. the matches look as if they are straightforward. \7e have to be able to run that scenario as an integrated unit. we must be able to locate inferencesthat apply outside the blend." You can't fully match the analogueswithout constructing that what counts as a good match depends on imaginative blended scenario. electoral politics make it impossible for that kind of leader to be elected.Tne ' W av \7E TutN r when. to the thinking person. In that blend. however staggeringly impressive. labor unions. presidential election nor the history of Britain conrains any prime minister campaigning in Michigan. seemingly for free. the dynamics of this imaginary scenarioare automatic. once Margaret Thatcher's bid is stopped by the i"bot unions. we need to do much more than match two analogues. . is relatively minor when compared with the creation of new meaning in the blend. even though we might never previously have matched "retired British Prime Minister" with "American presiJential hopeful. inventive are basedon Mere correspondences neither the conceptual frame of the U. yielding the all-imPortant conclusion that the speaker is asking us to build a disanabgt between the United Statesand Britain. finding correspondences meaning that is indisputably not imaginative new quires the construcion of 'there. The fantastic notion of Thatcher's defeat in a U.
this analogy would make little sense. When the ski instructor helps us learn how to propel ourselveson skis by inviting us to pretend that we are "pushing off" while roller skating. Rather. and science. Most motions that the skier can imagine are impossible or undesirable to execute. But within the conceptual blend prompted by the instructor. including biophysics and physics. Independent of the blend. a new realiry in culture. and under the conditions afforded by the environmenr. however. It does not matter that this blend is remote from any possible scenario. there is no tray. In this case. action. but in the caseof skiing it is also guided by real-world affordances.The Tip of thelceberg 2I Yet the fantastic aspectsof the blend do not seem to srop anyone from using it for everyday reasoning. \We will see that blends may or may not have features of impossibiliry or fantasy. mentally." Similarly. no glassware.Its very impossibiliry in fact. The creation of blends is guided by cognitive pressures and principles. \(hat counts are direction of BMe. but again not so: \fhen we carry a tray. as in "The Iron Lady and the Rust Belt. it may look as if we are simply to incorporate a known acrion pattern-pushing off-into skiing. and overall motion. but not so: Performing the exact action involved in roller skating would make us fall over. we must selectivelycombine the action of pushing off with the action of skiing and develop in the blend a new emergenr pattern. This might seem like a simple execution of a known pattern of bodily action-carrying a tray-in the context of skiing. The instructor is astutely using a hidden analogy between a small aspect of the waitert motion and the desired skiing position. THE EiKIING WAITER Conceptual integration is indispensablenot only for intellectual work. Many blends are not only possible but also so compelling that they come to represent. It's only within the blend-when the novice tries to carry the tray mentally while skiing physically-that the intended structure (the improved body position) emerges. but in skiing. known (not coincidentally) as "skating. position of the body.The instructor is not suggesting that a good skier moves "just like" a competent waiter. no weight. The resulting integrated action in skiing is not the simple sum of carryingaffay while moving downhill on skis. we create equilibriu* by exerting force against the weight of the tray. one of us had a ski instructor who prompted him to stand properly and face in the right direction as he raced downhill by inviting him to imagine that he was a waiter in a Parisian cafl carrying a tray with champagne and croissants on it and taking care not to spill them. seemsto make the reasoning more vivid and compelling. we sdll have the consffuction of "matches" between . as in all others. the desired motion will be emergent." but also for learning everyday patterns of bodily action.
In the Iron Lady case. Words themselvesare part of activation patterns. and blend at the level of both conceptual srrucrure and bodily action.The \Waiter exammatching that we have talked about in the Iron Lady and Skiing ples is actually a powerful way to bind elements to each other and activate them. always a meaningful pattern though never an abiding one. and many others from internal configurations of our brains acquired through personal biography. others from what people say to us." but the function of these matches is not analogical reason'W'e are not drawing inferences from the domain of waiting on tables and ing: prljecting them to the domain of skiing. The language makes matching the British "labor unions" and the U. a shifting harmony of subpatterns.S. this binding is very srrong and will feed the blend that becomes a new integrated modon. "labor unions" look trivial: The same expressionpicks them both out. But much of the shifting activation is the work of the imagination striving to find appropriate integrations.22 TsE \7eY W E TU IN r "waiter" and "skier. The skier need not forever think about carrying trays in order to perform adequately. however. Once activated. bind. ultimately. The fact that wo neurons are connected in the brain does not necessarilymean they will be coactivated." in which the computer user moves icons around on a simulated desktop. others from our Purposes. so when the same word is appropriate for rwo elements.the activation of a political frame made various matches more available:prime minister to president. Once the right motion has emerged through integration and the novice has mastered it. the links to croissantsand champagne can be abandoned. Rather. in his Gifford Lectures titled Man on His Nature. but it does not come for free. Both the Skiing'Waiter and Iron Lady blends depend upon a widely recognized psychological and neurobiological properry that we have not mentioned yet: The brain is a highly connected and interconnected organ. The most successfulinterface is the "desktop." Activation makes certain Patterns availablefor use at certain times." so the ski instructor has to direct the novice explicitly to make the connection. and. gives . we can prompt someone to match them by using the same word for both.British voters to U. Some of these activations come from real-world forces that impinge upon us. The great neurobiologist Sir Charles Sherrington.But there is no single expression for both "ski poles" and "waiter's tt?f. voters. THE EiENIE IN THE trC]MPUTER In the seemingly quite different realm of technological design. despite their radical differences. culrure. described the brain as "an enchanted loom where millions of fashing shuttles weave a dissolving parrern. \(hat counrs as a "narural" match will depend absolutely on what is currently activated in the brain. from biological evolution. but the activations of those connections are constantly shifting. comPuter interfaces are prompts ro activate. and so on. the point is the integration of motion.S.others from bodily stateslike wearinessor arousal.
which is only a medium. and opening.entirely obvious. invisible to us and taken for granted. within the technological device that makes the blend possible-namely. It is not hampered by its obvious literal falsities:There is no actual desk. Pushing a bumon rwice correspondsto opening. pointing. only variations in the illumination of a finite number of pixels on the screen. Pushing a button once when an arrow on the screenis superimposed on a folder corresponds to "lifting into view. or opening is happening at all. there is indeed lifting. it delivers an amazing number of multiple bindings acrossquite different slsrnsnls-bindings that seem. commands." no mafter where that configuration occurs on the screen. These domains of knowledge are "inputs" to the imaginative invention of a blended scenariothat servesas rhe basisfor integrated performance. In the conceptual blend. and choosing from lists. the computer interftce-no ordinary lifting. afortiori. Of course. and would make no senseif the blend were not hooked up to the inputs. Folders have identities." Of course. the entire activity of using the desktop interface is coherent and integrated. This interface was successful becausenovices could immediately use it at a rudimentary level by recruiting from their existing knowledge of office work. moving. moving. but from our mental conception of the work we do on a real desktop. Once learned. menus. no putting of objects into folders. and makes selectionsby pointing at options on menus. Once this blend is achieved. using the machine language. A configuration of continuous pixels on the screenis bound to the concept "folder.The label at the bottom of the folder in one view of the desktop correspondsto a set of words in a menu in another view. ordering a meal. having little rwodimensional squaresdisappearunder other little squaresis nor parr of giving commands or of putting sheetsof paper into folders.in retrospect. no putting of objects into the trash.the generalizedElizaeffect makes it seemas if the desktop interface carries all of this meaning. In fact. The user of the interface manipulates an integrated srructure that derives some of its properties from diflbrent inputs-office work. interpersonal commands. which are preserved. and dragging icons with the mouse is not part of moving objects on a desktop. or. no set of folders. The imaginative work we do when we use the desktop interface is part of backstagecognition. it has considerableemergent structure of its own: Pointing and clicking buttons is not ar all part of traditional office work or choosing from lists of words on paper. the desktop interface is like the baby photo: evidently an effective tool to be used by our imaginations. imported not from the technological device at hand. giving standard symbolic commands. The desktop interface is an excellent example of conceptual integrarion becausethe activity of manipulating it can be done only in the blend. But however much the interface takes from the inputs. but very thin and simple relative to them. no shuffing of objects from one folder to another. .The Tip of the Iceberg alphanumeric commands.The conceptual blend is not the screen:The blend is an imaginative mental creation that lets us use the computer hardware and software effectively.
often be recovered.the trashsrructure is irrelevant because can and the folders both sit on the desktop-but other discordant structure is objectionable. and productively. keyboard manipulation is d. is that a felicitous blend has been achieved-a blend that naturally inherits. Some discordant it has no bad consequences-for example. but once it is developed. . automatically. thus providing appropriate partial sffucture to later blends like desktops with icons. rather. The existenceof a good blend can make possible the developmenr of a better blend.In the Computer Desktop example. The domain of computer use has as inputs. of course. trRAZY NUMBERS In the Iron Lady example. The reason. in partial fashion. among others. the domain of comPuter oPeration and the domain of interpersonalcommand and performance. Yet the whole point of and the desktop interface is that the integrated activiry is immediately accessible congenial. Another point illustrated by the example above is that inputs to blends are themselvesoften blends. The desktop also nicely illustratesthe nonarbitrary nature of blending: Not just any discordant combination can be projected to the blend. Conceptual structure contains many entrenched products of previous concePtual integration. and it is novel even for the traditional computer user who has issued commands exclusively from a keyboard rather than from a mouse. users can work with it quickly.24 Tue ' W aY \7P TH tN r The user manipulates this computer interface not by means of an elaborate conscious analogy but.It is common to conceiveof the deletion of files as an operation of complete destruction performed by the sysrem at the command of the user.ready conceived of as a blend of ryping and high-level action and interaction. as an integrated form with its own coherent srrucrure and properties. the right concePtual structure from several inputs and then cultivates it into a fuller activiry under Pressure and constraints from realiry and background knowledge. the files are not permanently erasedby that command and can "tion.there has been laborious design to develop an efficient blend involving novel computer hardware. More generally. integration happens on-line and quickly and looks unremarkable. often with an elaborate conceptual history. by means of blending. Dragging the icon for a foppy disk to the trash as a command to eject the disk from the drive is notoriously disturbing to users. In actual comPuter oPerhowever.The user'ssenseof "deletion" is akeady a blend of computer operarion and human activiry. From an "objective" point of view.The inference from the domain of workin g at a desk that one loseseverything that is put into the trash and the inference from the domain of computer use that one cannot recoverwhat one has deleted interfere with the intended inference that the trashcan is a oneway chute berween two worlds-the desktop interface and your actual desk. this activity is totally novel-it sharesvery few physical characteristicswith moving real folders.
All accounts of scientific discovery acknowledge the crucial importance of analogy. This blend is a well-integrated structure. there should be a fixed properry associatedwith the adjective "safe" that is assigned to any noun it modifies.The first srarement means that the child will not be harmed.But the analogy alone did not produce an integrated notion of complex number. but they also have properties of vectors in two-dimensional space (magnitudes. This is often the casein scientific discovery. HT]\^/ EiAFE IS sA. matching.They all display the imaginative complexiqFof activation. we will analyze in some detail the invention of complex numbers. complex numbers have all the usual properties of numbers (they can be added.but analogy is not enough: Historically. the Computer Desktop."There is no fixed properry that "safe" assigns to child.FE? The Iron Lady. Complex blending is always at work in any human thought or action but is often hard to see. and so it was not embraced as part of number theory. It turns out to be a blend of nr/o much more familiar inputs: two-dimensional spaceand numbers. The mathematical domain of complex numbers was fully acceptedonly in the nineteenth century.with important properties. outstanding mathematicians such as Euler thought that such numbers were harmlessbut impossible. coordinates). multiplied. worry .The Tip of the lceberg 25 In other cases. "Safe" does not assign a property but. In this blend. beaclt." "The shovel is safe. As late as the end of the eighteenth century. with no inconsistencies. In Chapter 13. It is natural to think that adjectives assignfixed properties ro nouns. Yet consider the following unremarkable usesof "safe" in the context of a child playing at the beach with a shovel: "The child is safe. and Complex Numbers are representativecasesin superficially very difltrenr aspectsof human endeavor. the Skiing waiter. and shouel. and with impressive new mathematical power.The meanings that we take most for granted are those where the complexiry is best hidden. the analogy benveen imaginary numbers and points in spacewas well known by the end of the seventeenrhcentury and moreover the formal manipulations yielded by that analogy were fully recognized. It has elegant emergent structure of its own: Numbers now have angles. prompts us to 'W'e evoke scenariosof danger appropriate for the noun and the contexr. Even very simple constructions in language depend upon complex blending. and negative numbers have squareroots.the conceptual work of integration can take years or even centuries." "The beach is safe. By the sarnetoken. multiplying numbers is now an operation involving addition of angles. angles. and the construction of meaning. but so do the second and third-they do nor mean that the beach or the shovel will not be harmed (although they could in some other context). and so on). rather. such that "The cow is brown" assignsthe fixed properry brown to cow.
That match." the child is the victim in the blend if we are concerned about the shovel'sinjuring the child." a safe at a safe speed. the word "safe" evokesan abstract frame of dangerwith roles like victim. and instrument. and that there is nothing simple about "matching." "The beach is safe" shows that the "matches" are not achievedindependent of the blend. but it is put together according to the same dynamic principles as the blends we assemblefor unremarkable phraseslike "safe beacli' or "safetrip. then in the imaginary blend for "The of harm. the label on a can of runa can reporr that "This tuna is dolphin-safe. We can create many different blends out of the same inputs. The process is the same in all of them." In the context of buying fish at a supermarket." the jewels and their owner is the vicare neither victim nor instrument. beach.h. ""d "Have "Drive trip. If the shovel is safe. is a match berween a role in a frame and a specific elemenr that is in fact not an instance of the role.Technically. however. Modifying the noun with the adjective promprs us to integrate that abstract frame of danger and the specific situation \We of . build a specific imaginary scenario of harm in which child.THE \X/ev \flp THIt'tx about whether the child will be harmed by being on the beach or by using the shovel." The beach in the real situation is matched to the role "doer of harm" in the harm scenariobecause we have achieved an imaginary blend that counts as counterfactual to the real situation." the jewels are the uictim. The real "safe beach" is nor a "doer of harm. Furthermore. packaging is safe. involving several roles. This blend is the imaginary scenario in which the child is harmed." The noun-adjective combination can prompt even more elaborate blends." and "He stayed a safe distance away. In "The shovel is safe. In the imaginary blend for "The jewels are safe. the adjective is prompting us to blend a frame of dangerwith the specific situation of the child on the beach with a shovel." meaning that the tuna was caught using methods that prevent accidents from happening to dolphins." That's the point of the utterance. they arepossessioni tim. The word "safe" implies a disanalogy berween this counterfactual blend and the real situation. packaging is the banier to externalforces. This blend looks more unusual. The role "doer of harm" in the harm input is matched to a beach in the counterfactual blend that is imaginatively a doer of harm. as in "The beach is shark-safe"versus "The beach is child-safe. any number of roles can be recruited for the dangerinput. location. with respectto the entiry designated by the noun. but the results are different. external forces are the cnuse the showing examples Other th. it is becausein the counterfactual blend it is sharp enough ro causeinjury but in the real situation it is too dull to cut. and sltouelarc assignedto roles in the dangerframe. If we ship the jewels in packaging.child on the beach into a counterfactual eventof harm to the child. Instead of assigning a simple property. but the shovel is the victim in the blend if we are concerned about the child's breaking the shovel." variery of possible roles would be "This is a safebet. And the beach in the real situation is matched to .
or a pencil used only for recording deficits. or the chemical in the pencil reacrswith the paper ro produce red. . . as we will show later. and new ways of thinking. THE IMAGE trLUB \While dogs. cats. and the other is not.It is easyto point with pride to the invention of complex numbers.Rather. it turns out that the principles of integration suggestedabove are needed quite generally. but the strikingly human capaciryfor mo-sided blending is equally powerful throughout human domains of every description. Documentaries such as Claude Lanzman is Shoah reveal in great detail how bureaucrats in Nazi Germany could talk and think about the enormous killing machine they served as an ordinary . In a section of The Prehistoryof the Mind titled "Racist Attitudes as a Product of Cognitive Fluidiry. argues that it is quite recent in human evolution and responsiblefor not only the sudden proliferation of novel tools but also the invention of art. The archeologistStephen Mithen. but. Theories of semantics rypically prefer to work with examples like "black bird" or "brown co#' since these examplesare supposed to be the principal examples of compositionaliry of meaning. horses. blending. simply the potential for it to happen. new technologies. who has provided independent archeological evidence for such a capacity. For Mifien. And unfortunately that potential has been repeatedlyrealizedthroughout the courseof human history. There is no compulsion to do this. religion.which at first blush look as if they must assignfixed features. masskilling of certain groups of people can be blended with ordinary bureaucratic frames to produce a blended concept of genocide as a bureaucratic operation. and science. a pencil used to record the activities of a team dressedin red. cat. "Safe" is not an exceptional adjective with special semantic properties that set it apart from ordinary adjectives. ." he writes: "Physical objects can be manipulated at will for whatever purpose one desires.and other familiar speciespresumably must do perceptual binding of the sort neededto seea single dog.Even color adjectives. or . . even these examples illustrate complicated processes of conceptual inte gration. .turn out to require noncompositional conceptual integration. a pencil that leavesa red mark (the lead is red. which result in new tools." Similarly. people who could not bring themselvesto operate in the frame of genocide may find themselvesoperating comfortably in the blend. "Red pencil" can be taken to mean a pencil whose wood has been painted red on the outside. human beings are exceptionally adept at integrating t'wo extraordinarily different inpurs to creare new emergent structures.Cognitive fuidiry creates the possibiliry that people will be thought of in the same manner. ). Because the projection to the blend is only partial. or horse. which he calls "cognitive fuidiry" is what made possible the invention of racism.The Tip of the lceberg 27 the beach in the counterfactual blend becausethey are opposites in the way that matters for this situation: One is a doer of harm. a pencil smearedwith lipstick.
in ways that have relevance for the individual. These Practices. act like apprehensivereenagers. suicide. Becausesexual issuesand sexual fantasy are very familiar.which interrwine psychology. The inputs to the blend are the scenario with an imaginary high-school student and the real situation involving both the man in the "image club" and the prostitute (who. and the descent of the species. Phithough modern cognitive scienceemphasizes losophy in the fesh. as individuals and as cultures. it deprives itself of sexuality as a source of data and as a laboratory of analysis. even if not talked about. This fundamental theme in literatulg-1hs connection between the mental apprehensionof sex and the historical patterns of war. It is remarkable how difltrThis reenr rhey are from the sexualbehaviorsof the most closely related species. Meaning matters.Yet the role of meaning construction and imagination in the elaboration of human sexual practices is phenomenal and has direct. social.TH e ' W nv \W E TnrN r transfer of goods and merchandise.the worldt literatures of mental sexual fantasiesand their grave consequencesin realiry." a New Yorh Times article "severalhundred" bordellos (called "image clubs") in Tokyo in which the rooms are made to look like schoolrooms. define ourselves-are We believe this pervasiveaspectof human life has the richunique ro our species. b. alliances-merely refects our everydayrealiry.and the prostirures. nessand complexiry it does becauseof the imaginative processes rePorted rouare practices sexual in cultural wists and The latest inventions 'A Plain title Under the mere curiosities.complete with blackboards. but curiously.yo. alization has been central to theories of the unconscious such as Freudian psychoanalysis. necessary Blending imaginatively transforms our most fundamental human realities. and biological life. of blending. tinely in newspapersas if they were described School Uniform as the Latest Aphrodisiac. and exquisite sophistications febrile the explore Lolita after.The blend has the two inputs of genocide and but the bureaucratcan recruit a third input. Since neither the customer nor the prostitute is deluded. From the Odyssqtto (Jlysses. it is almost taboo inside cognitive science. real-world with Othello in between and social consequences. Meaning goes f". dressin high-school uniforms and ffy to while the customer takes the role of a teacher.Human sexual Practices are perhaps the epitome of meaningful behavior becausethey constitute a deeply felt intersection of mental. rape. biology. why should this make-believe have any power or attraction at all? The answer is that while the . but the imaginative construction of emergent meaning in this instance is astounding.the parrs of our lives most deeply felt and most clearly consequential. and social life-through which we.rd word play. in the specific casereported in the Times. chosen for their youthful looks. Even the embodiment of the mind. we may find such examples mundane.is actually twenry-six years old). But the blend has a teacher and a high-school student. according to which self-imposed ignorance is a virtue for a citizen and may be for the securiry of the nation. war. to supply the frame bureaucracy. the social group.
Many other projections are equally inappropriate. Also. and the blended mental spacewith the woman in the club as the attainable innocent high-school student. in a fashion.S. on the other. about which we have more to say later. we do not want the skier to starr believing that he has the job of delivering food to other people on the slopes. not by ^y obvious anil. Far from just mixing the featuresin free-for-all fashion from two situalisn5the classroomand the bordello-blending demands systematicmatches benneen the inputs and selectiveprojection to the blend according to a number of constraints that we will discussin depth in this book. In the Iron Lady example. projecr to the blend: The customer is not supposedto demand that the prostitute learn how to factor polynomials. . The teachert privileges and responsibilities in the classroom do not. It is driven by the intended blend. the sexual responseof the female in each of the two input spacesand in the blend. as in both the Iron Lady and Skiing \Taiter examples. and enough disintegration that the participants can connect ir ro both of the inputs. which he can inhabit mentally without losing his knowledge of the actual situation. Mental spacescan exist routinely along'$7hen side incompatible mental spaces. Consider. The matching is not obvious and preconstructed. but the resulting blend must have integrated action and meaning.S. we do nor wanr ro get losr in an escapistfantasy about an imaginary life for Margaret Thatcher. The high-school student is projected to the blend from the imaginary input.the customer is not supposedto turn himself in to the police for having assaulteda high-school student. we must simultaneously have the menral spacewith no milk in the refrigerator and the counterfactual mental spacewith the milk in the refrigerator. forgetting that the point is to make projections back to the real U. Just as in the Iron Lady example we had to match U. The blend has the essential new structure: sexwith the high-school student. but blending is equally driven by incomparibilities. In the Skiing Waiter example. we look in the refrigerator and seerhar there is no milk to be had. while the actual sexual act that takes place is imported from the material realiry linked to the mental spacewith the prostitute. the mental space with the imaginary and unattainable high-school student. but he is supposed to pay her. here we must match classroomand house of ill-repute. These are mental-space phenomena. Identity and analogy theory typically focus on compatibilities bet'weenmenral spaces simultaneously connected. The customer in the image club similarly has at the same rime the mental spacewith the experienced and trained prostirute. Often the point of the blend is not to obscure incompatibilities but.ogy between the schoolhouse and the whorehouse. in keeping with the prostitution input. there will be only partial projection from the inputs.And in the Image Club case. political situation.The Tip ofthe lceberg 29 customer can of course have sex with a prostitute. to have at once something and its opposite. except in the blend. for example. and British political domains. on the one hand. for the most part. he can't have sex with a highschool student.
and the participants must keep these spacesdistinct. " "counterfactual reasoning. discussion. But concePtemplation. In our culture.listening to lectures. attendance at courses. such as a more general schema of a specialevent with speakers is presidential inauguration. the however. In the blend. Also to be consideredis the practice the prostitute goesthrough to be able to sustain the act well but not too well. but this fact neither causeschronic embarrassmentnor keeps the citizenry in a Permanent sexualftenzy.Sexualblends pervade the culture. Needlessto say. one of the central benefits of conceptual blending is its abiliry ro provide compressionsto human scaleof difFusearraysof evenrs.or experience.never-to-be-forgotten ecstatic experience. are incompatible with each other. fine-tuned by the participants in the moment.on the contrary. there is even more complex blending going on in the Image Club case."My Viper is my Sharon Stone.The iaison d'1tre of mental spacesis to juggle representationsthat. among other things. as an object of condoes not leaveus indifferent. no action.the capaciry is much more general. to phenomena that logicians and philosophers of languagecall "opaciry" " and "presupposition proj ection. 'Whether distasteful or attractive. *rrd "tt. the general version of this blend is pervasive and supported byefforts of corporations and advertisers. four years the specialevent. It compresses. The graduation ceremony a blend of "going to class" into rwo or three hours. in the real world. Itt the sexiestvehicle on the road. The owner of a Dodge Viper sports car told Parade magazine. takes becausethe man only desires but woman will have a specracular.What actually happens in the blend may vary considerably depending on the specific projections from the rwo inputs. tual blending of just this sort rypically operatesin ways that do not make us selfconscious. Going to college involves of registration. the workaday prostitute has no real passionateresPonse. but one standard assumption would be that in the and prostitution input. The human capacity to construct and connect strikingiy different menral spacesis what makes such sexual fantasiesand practices possible to begin with.These oppositions are nor suppressed. the schoolroom blend.commany semesrers pleting the courses. In fact. EiRADUATIEN fu we shall see throughout this book. This mental juggling gives rise. activating them all simultaneously is part of the purpose of the network of spaces.nding of being a student: You hear a distinguished person who conveys wisdom and . Graduation is an example everyone knows.30 THE \WaY\7r TnrNrc There are many possibilities. A ceremony of graduatio" ii rypically a compression achieved by blending this difFuse aff^y with the in a limited time." Apparently he felt no hesitation in committing himself to this blend of sexualiry and motoring.and moving on to other walks of life. high-school imaginary the with input in th. at all resPonse is no there student.
you seeall your college friends going with you through the same process.and the processculminates in a transition. taking the stage.Indeed. with fiendish precision. and departing.it would have boiled. And the entire event is compressedinto an abiding marerial anchor that you take with you and hang on the wall: your diploma. Is there really anything deep going on in such examples? Our answer: Philosophers of language would call the Iron Lady example a "counterfactual. transformed into a graduate.contains compressionsof itself as well as compressionsof those compressions. in the hope of arriving ar an internal contradiction that is taken as proving the original assertion'sfalsiry. ti rHAPTER ffiff ZE E M I] UT z trEUNTERFAtrTUALS 'Ve began this chapter with an everyday example of thinking about presidential politics.The Tip of the lceberg 3I knowledge. you have your family at your side. Their approach is to think of the counterfactual as seting up an alternative world whose differences from the actual world consist of only ." The philosopher Nelson Goodman points out. The thirry secondsof the actual conferral of the individual degree has the student rising. Amazingly enough. political scientists." Following Goodman. philosophers. Counterfactuals include statementslike "If this water had been heated ar one hundred degreesCelsius. Question: . the great importance of counterfactual thinking and the pitfalls involved in their use: "The analysis of counterfactual conditionals is no fussy little grammatical exercise. Counterfactuals includ e reductio ad absurdurn proo in which the mathematician setsup as true what she wants ro prove false and manipulates it as true. if we lack the means for interpreting counterfactual conditionals. the graduation ceremony. These thirry seconds are then compressedin turn into a single moment." becauseit is contrary to fact. and psychologistshave devoted considerableefforts to the study of counterfactual reasoning. we can hardly claim to have any adequate philosophy of science.engaging in a transitional moment that includes ^yery compressedconversation with the university official. the movement of the tasselfrom one side of the mortarboard to the other. linguists. which is already a srrong compression.
social sciences itly recognized in recent books and articles. and other social scientists . that counterfactuals are in general complex blends with emergent structure' and that the case on which theorists focus-minimal modification of one world-is only a specialcase. and British systemsin very partial ways and producing a blend that. .. Accordingly. Iro. Moreover. and nobody seemsto have much trouble learning to use it. Most of the analytic claims turn out to be implicit counterfactuals. presidentialprimaries and elecof such an election (e.r." which is of course an explicit counterfactual. . ph. this sounds easy. basic methods of social scienceseem to depend inescapablyon counterfactual thinking.a tions. dynamic powers of the imagination. But examples like the Iron Lady actually reveal an even higher or]. counterfactuals-however simple they may feel to us-turn out to have deep complexities we are only beginning to understand.S. of complexiry. Lady rype of counterfactual is of an even higher order of complexity than the ones usually studied and seemsto put the lie to the usual methods of analyingcounterfactuals. frequently to their dismay..g. -or.sociolthe linguist. G E M P U T E R I N T E R F A t rE S The desktop interface for the computer is very common.as has been explici1 th.. "rrJ noticed. "If the water had been heated . ") and its direct consequences. ing the U. is itself very partial. we are not setting uP a possible *orld in which Thatcher is a candidate in U. far from being a complete world. nor arewe concernedwith all the consequences \flhat we are doing is matchBritish womant being head of the United States).ion io th.. often have ogirts. So the answer to our quesdon is that counterfactuals are widely considered to pose an exceptionally difficult problem. logically and semantically. \7e have discovered. An assertionlike "The shipping industry in Greece Prospered after \forld \War II becauseGreece had developed good infrastructure duting rhe war" is unintelligible except as a claim that "If Greecehad not developed such-and-suchinfrastructure... .h.but the of change in one intractable aspecrof the problem is to specifr the consequences little part of our actual world. its shipping industry would not have prospered.. dedicated only to the purpose at hand. . H U M A N . and will document in detail in Chapter 1 1. As political scientists.32 Tur \7ev \78 TntNr the differencespecifiedby the linguistic expression(.Intuitively.anthropologists. In the Iron Lady. This is becausethe usual methods have paid scant at.g.h. How do we compute the ripples of a single hyPothetical change throughout a vast and intricate world where everything is interrelated?So the logic of counterfactuals as conceived by theorists is already a formidable problem..S. The problems counterfactualspose are important not only to the philosoeconomists.
and regard them as posing difficult questions for both the designer and the psychologist. should tip us off immediately to the evolutionary development that was needed to make such feats possible. so the simplest feats we learn to perform. and even those big brains cannot know consciously what it is that they are doing. seeing.The Tip of the Iceberg 33 Questions: ' Are computer engineers really unaware of what we have said about the computer desktop? ' Doesnt the fact that anybody can learn this interface show that it cant be as complicated as we say? Our answers: Computer engineers and cognitive scientists are very well aware of issuesof metaphor in the design of interfaces. The childt handling of syntax and phonology is universally known to be a marvel of the human mind. like using the computer desktop. has gone unnoticed. It was by studying syntax formally and methodically that Noam Chomslcy convinced psychologists that learning language went far beyond simple associations. can even begin to handle these feats.the imagination is always at work in ways that consciousness . The fact that every child can masrer grammar now counts as a strong reason for studying it and for expecring it to pose much greaterdifficulties for the analyst than mere exceptional performances by a few special individuals.interestingly. The form approaches. but no member of any other speciescan do it. The question "Can this interface really be so imaginative if everybody can do it?" can be asked of many exampleswe will present in this book. are the hardest to analyze. From the standpoint of cognitive science. and in the construction of the metaphors they use and develop. did discover and explore the erroneous assumption behind the "everybody can do it" question insofar as form was concerned. Our major claims in this book are radical but true: Nearly all important thinking takes place outside of consciousness and is not available on introspection.That every human being can do it. Our answer by now is predictable: The unconscious mental processes we take for granted deliver products and performances to our conscious minds that seem completely simple but whose invention is much too complicated for feebleconsciousness ro begin to apprehend. But the role of unconscious blending in the design of interfaces. walking. grasping. Just as talking. the mental feats we think of as the most impressiveare trivial compared to everydaycapacities.the everyday capacitiesof the well-evolved human mind are the best candidates for complexiry and promise the most interesting universal generalizations. and doing a lot of dynamic work as trained by their cultures. and so on have come to be recognized as involving astonishingly complicated and dynamic unconscious processes. Only really big brains connected in special ways.
dly' reachedfor the volume button on the radio to turn it up. can also recruit patterns and operations that end up having unfortuIn the psychological study of errors.this was not an absent-mindedaction at all: The driver's mind was fully at work doing quite ingenious and opportunistic blending that solved the problem conceptually but happened not to play out properly in the real car. consciousness mind is doing. Of course. OF ERRERsi THE PSYtrHtfLEGY \Waiter.34 TU E \W ev \7E TurN x can glimpse only a few vestigesof what the does not apprehend. impressive as their knowledge and techniques may be. people use their mental capaciAs we saw in the example of the Skiing ties in seemingly unusual ways to learn to perform physical actions and social routines coffecdy. we saw that the instructor was able to PromPt the novice to perform the correct motion by using an inventive blend. and the economist. are also unaware of how they are thinking and. one focal question is nare consequences. The novice . In the case of the skier. even though they are experts. paying attention to the job of driving and having irouble hearing the people in the back seatwith whom he was conversing.Evolution seemsto have built us to be constrained from looking diiectly into the narure of our cognition. and so counts as a success. Is the skiing example far-fetched?Is it represenrative? . sciously. The study of errors is for psychologists a precious source of evidence about actual mental operarions and the kinds of invisible connections they carry with them. the radio volume and the voice volume were blended as both controllable by the radio knob.the mathematician. mistakes could have made them. the engineer. Questions: .Consider a situation in which blending gave bad results: A driver. Is there anything to learn from these seemingly unusual events? .but it might inspire a device that could be used to ampli$' (or mute) sounds coming from the back sear-a very useful invention for drivers and parents.will not find out just by asking themselves. the scientist. The blending itself was not a success. How does it relate to work by psychologistson human action? Our answers: The Skiing \Taiter is an example where the blending yielded good results in But blending' always at work unconhuman action. which puts cognitive sciencein the difficult position of trying ro use mental abilities to revealwhat those very abilities are built to hide. and that is usually a made who agents how quesrion of how they could have brought to bear meanings and operations that turned out to yield the wrong results. "absent-mind. For a feeting momenr.
from learning to ride a bicycle to learning a martial art. if unusual.The Tip ofthe lceberg 35 was performing the incorrect motion of looking in the direction of his feet. and dont we already know how analogy works? Our answer: Analogy theory is about analogical projection. that the appropriare emergent acdon pattern arises.'We can thus reason about the target.In doing so. is a vast and .elaborate simulation technologies have been developed to train tank drivers. moror rourines for driving a car can be lethal in this new situation. this is not what is happening. People learning to fly a plane must learn very early that even though they are looking out of a windshield and holding a steering device. it leads to genuine novel integrated acrion. That pattern does not inhere in either the skiing input or the waiting input. and even automobile drivers to make the right blends instead of the wrong ones. though much less noticeable. Sexual fantasy.In both the Skiing'Waiter and Image Club examples. airplane pilots. The instructor asked the novice explicitly to abandon that blend and make a new. which rypically rely on structure-mapping only. ANALEEiY All the examplesin this chapter involve aligning elements in two or more inputs and forging analogiesbetween them. a base or source domain is mapped onto a targer so thar inferences easily available in the source are exported to the target. of skiing and walking. when the novice tries to mentally carry the tray while physically skiing. Integration of this kind is not a feature of models for analogical reasoning. A skier who did this would remove his skis and start walking.Rather. The Image Club is an even more striking example. whether or not enacted. blend of skiing and carrying a tray of champagne and croissantsthrough a cafl. Question: ' Isn't blending just a kind of analogy. This incorrect motion is irself a blend. it is entirely clear that the customer must not determine his behavior in the image club analogically through projection from a teacher'sbehavior in a classroom. Analogy in either direction would be disastrous. or conversely. which in turn is the direction of the skis. as it would if it were only analogically transferred. It is only within the blend. The instructor is not suggestingthat the skier move "just like" a waiter. the instructor was using a technique of coaching that is basic to any domain involving human bodily action.blending is not just manipulation or projection of inferences. Part of learning a moror acdon is displacing old blends with new. Here. But in the skiing example. In the last few decades. In standard analogical reasoning. air traffic controllers.
then. has occurred. It has a close associationwith the earlier notions of Koestler. and the contemporary ideas of Perkins. We will show that this operation is indeed fundamental to few strikingly all activities of the human mind. and not something restricted to "geniuses. creative examples. sculpture. and transformation of structured conceptual spaces." we can neverthelesssee the potential for how particularly creative thoughts may arise from quite unusual transformations of conceptual spacesundertaken by particular individuals in particular circumstances. she describesthem as a "style of music.r. chemistry. choreography. with the case of "The Buddhist Monk." 'S7'hat . We begin where Koestler left off. \trh. exploration. who usesthe terminology of "klondike spaces" and argues that these are often systematically explored in the processof creative thinking." In spite of this vagueness. while creative thinking is clearly part of ordinary thinking. In this regard. who has described crethinking-in ative thinking as arising from the sudden interlocking of two previously unrelated skills or marrices of thought.TH E \W av \7n TH IN x Margaret Boden has argued that creative thought can be explained "in terms of the mapping. is a convergence toward the essential idea that there is a single menral operation involved in creativiry in a number of different doAristotle and others picked out some interesting features of a mains." Her definition of conceprual spacesis vague. contemPo rary creativiry theorists have argued that this operation is not reserved for geniuses or for extraordinary acts of creation.the idea of transforming conceptual spacesis intuitively appealing. and Koestler proposed that there is a special operation that underlies all these striking cases. and we will try to lay out a Precise and explicit theoretical framework in which to study its nature. etc.".
\ilZhatwe have to say about this Buddhist Monk will be more effective if you close the book for a moment and try to solve the riddle without any hints. which describes just one person doing diflbrent things on different days.Make no assumptionsabout his starting or sropping or about his pace during the trips. but we do know that. Its existencesolvesthe riddle. But solving this little riddle only posesa much bigger scientific one: How are we able to arrive at the solution. imagine that he is taking both walks on the same day.There must be a place where he meets himself. and that place is the one we are looking fo. try this: Ra*rer than envisioning the Buddhist Monk strolling up one day and strolling down severaldays later. even though it is nowhere in the original riddle. 39 . wharever its location. this is a compelling solution to the riddle. Using that scenario is crucial to seeing the solution. the monk must be there at the same time of day on his rwo separate journeys. which he reaches at sunset. For many people. Now that you have found your place again. reachesthe top at sunset.ffiffiThree THE I]F ELEMENTS BLENDINtri A Buddhist Monk begins at dawn one day walking up a mountain.." Yet this impossible imaginative creation gives us the truth we are looking fot \7e plainly don't care whether it is impossible or not-thatt irrelevant to our reasoning. Riddle: Is there a place on the path that the monk occupies at the same hour of the day on the two separatejourneys? THrs IS THE AMAZINc RIDDLE that Arthur Koestlerpresenrs in TheAct of Creation. meditates at the top for several days until one dawn when he begins to walk back to the foot of the mountain. But the scenario of two people meering each other is not only possible but also commonplace. and why should we be persuadedthat it is correct? It is impossible for the monk to travel both up and down. \(e dont know where this place is. He cannot "meet himself.
the frame srrucrure recruited to the mental spaceis representedas either outside in a rectangle or iconically inside the circle. mental spacesare rePresentedby circles. This ture of an "encounter.. the year 2001. ." such as the frame of walking along a ?ath. Input Spaces. elementscorrespondto coactivation-bindingsof a certain kind." which is not an aspect of the seParate aPParent. but now for the purpose of stating what Max believes. In adt.by lines. by points (or icons) in the circles. and to long-term specific knowledge. Mental spacesare very partial. Mount Rainier.rr. In the neural interpretation of these cognitive mental spacesare sets of activated neuronal assemblies.*.l. . each is apartial structure correspondingto one spaces. for Mental spaces purposes of local understanding and action."You climbed Mount Rainier in 2001" setsup the mental sPacein order to report a pasr evenr. and connedions between elements in differenr spaces. there are two input mental As shown in Figure 3. and can be modified as thought and discourse unfold. They contain elements and are typically structured by frames.'w'e will lay them out here. solution the makes emergent structure THE NET\MERK MEDEL The Buddhist Monk example revealsthe central principles of the network model of conceptual integration. Mental spacescan be used generally to model dynamic mappings in thought and language. we will use diagrams to talk about mental spacesand blends.. "Max believesthat you climbed Mount Rainier in 2001" sets it up again. and it has the emergent strucjourneys. Mental Spaces are small conceptual packets constructed aswe think and talk.. such as a memory of the time you climbed Mount Rainier in 2001.and the lines processes."Here is a picture in order olyou climbing Mount Rainier in 2001" evokesthe samemental sPace "This Mount climbing has you novel to talk about the content of the picture.r. The mental spacethat includes you. At various rimes along the way. we have a mental space for the ascent and another mental space for the descent. Mental spacesare connected to long-term schematic knowledge called "frames. In the Buddhist Monk network. "If you had climbed Mount Rainier in 2001" setsup the same mental spacein order to examine a counterfactual situation and its consequences. In these diagrams. and your climbing the mountain can be activated in many different ways and for many diflbrent purposes. in a scene Rainier in 2001" reporrs the author's inclusion of a possibly fictional novel. They are interconnected.n dition.40 THE 'WnY \7E TurNr The imaginative conception of the monk's meeting himself blends the journey ro the summit and the journey back down.1. In the Buddhist Monk network.r.
.4).3 by a double-headed arrow). moving individual. Each of the mountain slopesin the rwo input mental spacesis projected to the same single mountain slope in the blended . moving indiin the input mental spaces vidual. and the monk going down is ar. the day of the downward journey is d' the monk going up is al. day of travel. Generic Space. and motion in an unspecified direction (representedin Figure 3.2). day. A generic mental space maps onto each of the inputs and contains what the inputs have in common: a moving individual and his position.1 d r / Input SpaceI INPUT MENTAL 5PAtrES Input Space2 Input Space 1 FIE U RE 3.It connectsmounrain. The day of the upward journey is d. and motion in the other mental space. Mapping. and motion in one mental spaceto mounrain. Blend. There is a fourth mental space.2 trRoSS-S PAtrE MAPPING Input Space2 of the rwo journeys.the blended space. Cross-Space A partial cross-space mapping connects counrerparrs (seeFigure 3. a path linking foot and summit of the mountain .TheElements of Blending 41 7 FIEiURE 3. a day of travel.that we will often call "the blend" (seeFigure3.
with direction of modon preserved. They are moving in opposite directions. First. But the moving individuals and their positions are maPped according to the time of day. composition of elementsfrom the inputs makes relations availablein the blend that do not exist in the separateinputs. there are two moving individuals instead of one. contains a counterpart of a1 at the position ".and therefore cannot bofused. Emergent Structure The blend developsemergenrstructure that is not in the inputs.42 TH E \W av \78 Tnrxr Generic Space 1 Input SPace FIEURE 3. blended spacepreserves at time by occupied t and day d'. Input Space 1 representsdynamically the entire upward journey. d. t of day d.The wo days of ffavel. . and d.3 EENERItr MENTAL 5PAtrE Input Space 2 space. aswell as a counterpart of a2 at the position occupied by ^. The projection into the which has time times and positions. In the blend but in neither of the inputs. while Input Space2 representsthe entire downward journey.The blended space. at time t of day dr. aremapped onto a single day d' and are thus fused.
by means of completion. d'.4 BLENDED SFAtrE starting from opposite ends of the path. completionbings additional structure to the blend. the blend is integrated: It is an instance of a parricular familiar frame. the frame of two people walking on a path in opposite .At this point. Second. since they are traveling on the same day.TheElements of Blending 43 Generic Space Input Space1 lnput Space 2 Blended Space FIEURE 3. Third. and their positions can be compared at any time of the trip. This structure of rwo people moving on the path can itself be viewed as a salient part of a familiar baclground frame: two People starting a journey at the same time from opposite ends of a path. this familiar structure is recruited into the blended space.
The meeting place projects back to the "same" location on the path in each of the inputs. projectstructures. across and blend.Given the way we have built the blend.p".o.rn.anything fused in the blend projects back to in the input spaces. the the inputs or to new structure ing bachvard to inputs. As we run the blend. locating shared blend.. the links to the inputs are constantly maintained. matching Building an integration network involves setting up mental sPaces. By virtue of that frame. But those in either of the input mental spaces. and location on the path in the different is the fash of . in the input rp".the time of day when they meet in the when the monk is at that tl. The nerwork will achieveequilibrium if structure comes up in the blend that projects back automatically to the inputs to yield the existenceof the special point on rhe path. rwo people in the blend are projected back to the "same" monk in the two input mental spaces. The mapping back gestedby Figure 3.Koestler'smagical "act of creation.44 Tur \fav \7p TH tN r directions. position of the monk. we know that any point on the path in the blend projects to counterparts More generally. there are geometrical regularities acrossthese spaces.Running of the blend modifies it imaginatively.The integration nerwork is trying to achieve equilibrium." But for this fash to occur. completely unconscious. the rwo people move along the path.td is the same as the time of day in the input spaces yields the configuration sugspaces input to the location. delivering the actual encounter of the fwo people. as when we are instructed to find a solution to the riddle of the Buddhist Monk. And tive work is all unconscious.. More generally. so that all these "sameness"connections acrossspacesseem to PoP out automatically." Context will rypically specify some conditions of the equilibrium.5..t. there is a place where the network is "happy. and.In particular.but it is crucial to keep in mind that any of them can run at any time and that they can run simultaneously.. This is new structure: There is no encounter even if we run them dynamically.\flhat comes into consciousness imaginathe elaborate because precisely magical it seems comprehension. i.. recruiting 'We oPerawill talk about these running various operations in the blend itself tions in sequence. This "running of the blend" is called elaboratioz. counterpart links must be unconsciously maintained even as they change dynamically across four mental spaces.. But this "geomeuic" knowledge of correlations among time. to a selectively projecting spaces. we can now run the scenariodynamically: In the blend. of course. In a manner of speaking. . WHAT HAVE WE SEEN? Blending in the riddle of the Buddhist Monk has features that turn out to be universal for conceptual integration.yielding a fash of comprehension.rp"r. what counts as an equilibrium for the .
The Basic Diagram in Figure 3. but also on various internal constraints on its dynamics. the dotted lines indicate connections between inputs and either generic or blended spaces.and the solid square in the blended spacerepresentsemergenr structure. ) Input Space2 time t'(day d2) BlendedSpace time t'(day d') FIG U RE 3.5 MAPPING BAEK Ttr INPUT 5PAtrEs network will depend on its purpose.6 illustrates the central featuresof conceptual integration: The circles represent mental spaces.TheElernents d Blending GenericSpace Input Space1 time t'(day d.the solid lines indicate the matching and cross-space mapping between the inputs. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.