This document is a synopsis submitted for a Master's degree in Business Administration. It discusses developing a cognitive expert system for evaluating employee performance in an industrial organization. The system aims to provide a more objective and accurate assessment compared to traditional appraisal methods. It will classify important evaluation features and use a cognitive inference methodology to calculate overall scores based on these weighted features. The methodology involves designing the feature dataset, developing the cognitive expert system to represent expert judgments, and testing the system using machine learning techniques.

1. Cognitive Expert System for Employees Performance
Appraisal in an Industrial Organization
A Synopsis submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration
by
Rashmi Chahar
to the
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
DAYALBAGH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE
2015-16

3. iii
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the work contained in the synopsis titled Cognitive Expert Sys-
tem for Employees Performance Appraisal in an Industrial Organization, by
Rashmi Chahar, has been carried out under my supervision and that this work has not
been submitted elsewhere for a degree.
Ashish Chandiok
Master of Business Administration
MBA Faculty, Agra City Branch
2015-16

5. Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction to Employee Performance Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.6 Brief Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.6.1 Cognitive Expert System for Peformance Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.7 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
References 6

7. Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction to Employee Performance Appraisal
Performance Appraisal of employees has a very crucial part on the road to the progres-
sion of any organization. Every time it is a hard-hitting assignment for all industry or
organization as there is no common and accurate technical methodology for determin-
ing the performance of the staff member. Performance Appraisal system is implemented
to evaluate the skills and usefulness of the working employees. In evaluating employee
performance, performance appraisal generally comprises of assigning quantitative or ver-
bal qualitative labels to employees performance. On the basis of these scores and labels,
the employee performance appraisal decisions are determined, based on fixed abstract
weighted average mathematical formulas. These formulas are not correct and give vague
conclusions, as they do not consider human cognitive expert judgement experiences. By
cognitive viewpoint, the performance of the appraise embraces the meta-cognitive expert
valuation of effort talent, services and compliance which are absolutely mental experience
concepts that needs to be define in human knowledge and decision making terms. Hence,
cognitive approach must be used to inspect this information. Consequently, cognitive
techniques are applied to judge the employees rendering to their performance, which illus-
trates human mind impressions in the judgement and therefore demonstrates the human
cognitive power of decision making inside the expert system.

8. 2
1.2 Motivation
In the big industries and organizations, performance appraisal of employees has continu-
ously been a chaotic and complex workout for the Management and Department of Human
and Resources (HRD). However, performance appraisal leads a significant part in handling
employees efficiently, particularly in the view of current economic transformation, which
has obliged together private and public organizational sector to advance their individual
performances and protect resources for progress and building career of their employee.
The key objective of the appraisal is to acquire and review the performance of the employ-
ees, and create a strategy to augment and progress total performance in the direction of
the fruitful development of the organizations. Based on categories and scope of dissimilar
organizations various approaches of performance appraisal are implemented by the Human
Resource Department (HRD) to appraise the performance of individual employees. Com-
mencing employeeâĂŹs perspective the determinations of performance appraisal are 1) To
explain the necessary steps to be taken for future work, 2) Help to increase performance
and skills, 3) Reward employees for better work.
1.3 Problem Statement
The primary problem that will be concentrated in this research work is how to truth-
fully compute the total score of employee performance using the objectives and cognitive
appraisal method. In context to primary problem following secondary problems are con-
sidered and described as:
1. What are the qualitative and quantitative features that will be utilized to evaluate the
employee Performance?
2. What is the cognitive inference methodology that will be employed to compute the
total score according to various important weighted features?
3. What is the dissimilarity between total assessment using conventional appraisal ap-
proach and total judgement score using cognitive approach?

9. 3
1.4 Hypothesis
The cognitive approach deals an appropriate elucidation to tackle the individual and qual-
itative rudiments of human decision. Multi expert collaborative process can be used to
allocate diverse individual judgement capabilities to create the overall assessment evalua-
tion. The cognitive experience decision skills for each individual are obtained from human
specialists in associated area.
1.5 Objective
The Objective behind the recommended cognitive prototypical model is to discover an
instrument to progress the employee performance and skills by real, unbiased and truthful
employee evaluation. The output information of this proposed model is producing the
following functions:
1. “To classify the crucial features that contribute in evaluating employee performance.”
2. “To develop a cognitive expert model for judgement of employee performance and
create an appraisal to improve employee future skills.”.
3. “To test the proposed prototype model and evaluate employee performance on the
developed model.”
1.6 Brief Methodology
A systematic step by step research process is implemented to complete the work. At first,
the research problem is defined. Secondly, the research designing is implemented which
functions on designing sample and data collection. Thirdly, data collection is implemented
to formulate the features dataset. Fourthly, design and implementation of the cognitive
expert system is done which represents the conclusive outputs of the experts. At last, the
expert system is tested and compared for different pragmatic machine learning techniques.
1.6.1 Cognitive Expert System for Peformance Appraisal
Cognitive Expert systems are knowledge-based system and as such undeniably embrace a
technology of cognitive computing. The creators of cognitive expert systems depend on

10. 4
Users Send
Queries
Cognnitive natural Language
Interface
Query Base
Knowledge Memory
base
Cognitive Heuristic
Inference
Engine
User
Get Queries Results
Query
Information
Query vector Information
Processing Information
Query Search Information
Matching Informationn
Inference
Information
Figure 1.1: Expert System for Cognitive Computing
the actual process and approach of integrated autonomous areas that comprise semantics,
cognitive sensibility and artificial intelligence. These areas consists mutually the study of
several kinds of operations on symbolic and emergent approaches. Cognitive expert scien-
tists tend to be interested in the nature and properties of intelligent systems and complete
the goals based on human problem solving nature, rather than using conventional soft-
ware procedure. Conventional programs are strictly abstract codes for accomplishment of
a task or resolving a problem by communicating with the user. Nevertheless, many sub-
stantial technical and general human queries cannot be resolved by conventional abstract
codes, since, the problematic domain are dynamic and uncertain. In such a condition,
there are numerous result routes to explore in a certain time limit. Cognitive computing
based expert systems, in comparison, depend on human heuristic search methods to find
the solution. Heuristics are techniques to solve problems based on decision, feelings, and
intuitions power of a domain specific human expert. Cognitive expert systems openly
signify the procedures in terms of software program rules coded in memories of database,
as the knowledge that creates conclusions. Hence, by using past experiences stored in the
memories, the cognitive expert can thus solve fuzzy specified state problems just as the
human expert does.

11. 5
Algorithm 1: Cognitive Expert System Expert System rule
Data: An User Query input:
Result: A Cognitive Expert System algorithm to solve human queries to give best
judgement output
1 Initialization: input query from an User
2 foreach Query interfaced by the cognitive expert agent do
3 Cognitive natural language interface:Develop Query feature vector based on
qualitative and quantitative facts
4 Query Software Base: Apply Software to load heuristic and machine rules that
are capable to process queries to be solved
5 Knowledge base: Consult past procedural, semantic and episodic facts as past
experiences
6 Cognitive Heuristic Engine: Implement Procedures based on knowledge base for
inference and intuitive control of expert output
1.7 Thesis Outline
• Chapter-1: It is the introductory chapter. It introduces with motivation of do-
ing the work, problem statement, scope of the project, objective and brief research
methodology.
• Chapter-2: It includes a literature review which covers past history and theories on
expert system and pragmatic programming technique.
• Chapter-3: It defines the methodology for the design and implementation of the ex-
pert system on which basis the artificial decisions support for employee performance
appraisal is prepared.
• Chapter-4: It shows the experimental and comparative results of different pragmatic
machine learning.
• Chapter-5: It provides a discussion and summary of the major findings implemented
in the project.
At last, references and appendix are provided for better understanding of the technicalities
involved in this project.

13. References
[AB73] J. R. Anderson and G. H. Bower. Human associative memory. Washington,
DC: Winston and Sons, 1973.
[ABB+04] J. R. Anderson, D. Bothell, M. D. Byrne, S. Douglass, C. Lebiere, and Y. Qin.
An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, pages 1036–1060,
2004.
[ABLM98] J. R. Anderson, D. Bothell, C. Lebiere, and M. Matessa. An integrated theory
of list memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 38:341–380, 1998.
[AL98] J. Anderson and C. Lebiere. The Atomic Component of Thought. Lawernce
Erlbaum Associate,Mawah,N.J., 1998.
[Alb97] J. S. Albus. The nist real time control system (rcs): An approach to in-
telligent system research. Journal of Experimental and Theoritical Artificial
Intelligence, 9:157–174, 1997.
[AM97] J. R. Anderson and M. P. Matessa. A production system theory of serial
memory. Psychological Review, 104:728–748, 1997.
[And76] J. R. Anderson. Language, memory, and thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1976.
[And83] J. R. Anderson. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1983.
[And90] J. R. Anderson. The adaptive character of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1990.
[And93] J. R. Anderson. Rules of Mind. Hillslade, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1993.

14. 8
[And07] J. R. Anderson. How can the human mind occur in the physical universe. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press., 2007.
[AS91] J. R. Anderson and L. J. Schooler. Reflections of the environment in memory.
Psychological Science, 2:396–408, 1991.
[Baa97] B. J. Baars. In the theater of consciousness: global workspace theory, a rig-
orous scientific theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies,
4:292–309, 1997.
[Bre00] C. L. Breazeal. Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between hu-
mansand robots. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mas-
sachusetts, 2000.
[Bre03] C. L. Breazeal. Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1-2):155, 2003.
[Bro91] R. A. Brooks. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence,
47:139–159, 1991.
[Bro99] R. A. Brooks. Cambrain Intelligence: The Early history of the New AI. Cam-
bridge, Mass: Bradford Books, 1999.
[Bus45] V. Bush. As we may think. In The Atlantic Monthly(Boston), volume 1, pages
101–108. Boston, 1945.
[Car60] J. Mc. Carthy. Recursive functions of symbolic expression and their computa-
tion by machine. Communication of the Association for Computing Machin-
ery(ACM), 3:184–195, 1960.
[CMRS55] J. Mc. Carthy, M. L. Minsky, N. Rochester, and C. E. Shanon. A proposal
for the darmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. Technical
report, Darmouth, August 31 1955.
[DD87] H. Dreyfus and S. Dreyfus. Mind over Machine. The Free Press NewYork,
1987.
[Den71] Daniel C. Dennett. Intentional systems. J. Phil., 68:87âĂŞ106, 1971.

15. 9
[Den82] D. C. Dennett. How to study consciousness empirically, or Nothing comes to
mind. Synthese 59, 1982.
[Den84] D. C. Dennett. Cognitive wheels: the frame problem of AI. In Mind, Machines,
and Evolution, pages 129–151. Cambridge, University Press Cambridge, 1984.
[Den91] D. C. Dennett. Consciousness Explained. Boston MA: Little Brown, 1991.
[Dev61] G. C. Devol. Unimate robots. US. patent No.2,998,237, 1961.
[Elm90] J. Elman. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14:179–211, 1990.
[FB82] J. A. Feldman and D. H. Ballard. Connectionist models and their properties.
Cognitive Science, 6:205–254, 1982.
[FP88] J. A. Fodor and W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A
critical analysis. In Pinker and Mehler, editors, Connections and Symbols,
pages 3–71. MIT press, 1988.
[GMV07] S. Giulio, G. Metta, and D. Vernon. The icub cognitive humanoid robot:
An open-system research platform for enactive cognition. In Max Lungarella,
Fumiya Iida, Josh Bongard, and Rolf Pfeifer, editors, 50 Years of Artificial In-
telligence, volume 4850 of Lecture Notes in ComputerScience, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin and Heidelberg, pages 358–369, 2007.
[Gra05] G. Granlund. A cognitive vision architecture integrating neural networks with
symbolic processing. KI-Zeitschrift KÃijnstliche Intelligenz, Special Issue on
Cognitive Computer Vision, April 2005.
[Gro76] S. Grossberg. Adaptive pattern classification and universal recoding: I parallel
development and coding of neural feature detector. Biological Cybernetics,
23:121–134, 1976.
[HML93] S. Huffman, C. Miller, and J. Laird. Learning for instruction: a knowledge-
level capability within a unified theory of cognition. Proceedings of the 15th
Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1993.

16. 10
[Hop82] J. J. Hopfield. Neural network and physical system with emergent collec-
tive computational abilities. In Proceedings of Natianal Academy of Sciences,
volume 79, pages 2554–2588, 1982.
[HP95] S. R. Hameroff and R. Penrose. Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence
in brain microtubules. A model for consciousness Neural Network World,
5(5):793–804, 1995.
[HP96] S. R. Hameroff and R. Penrose. Orchestrated Reduction Of Quantum Coher-
ence In Brain Microtubules: A Model For Consciousness? MIT Press, 1996.
[HS86] G.E. Hinton and T. J. Sejnowski. Learning and relearning in boltzmann ma-
chine. In Parallel Distributed processing:Exploration in Microstructure of Cog-
nition,D. E. Rumellhart and J. L. McClelland Eds., Cambridge, MA, pages
282–317. MIT press, 1986.
[Huf94] S. Huffman. Instructable Autonomous Agents. PhD. Thesis, 1994.
[Hur98] S. L. Hurley. consciousness in Action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press, 1998.
[JTLR93] R. Jones, M. Tambe, J. Laird, and P. Rosenbloom. Intelligent automated
agents for flight training simulators. In Proceedings of the Third Conference
on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, 1993.
[Kit99] T. Kitamura. Can a robot’s adaptive behavior be animal-like without a learning
algorithm? IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conference, Tokyo, 1999.
[KM97] D. Kieras and D. E. Meyer. An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition
and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human-
Computer Interaction., 12:391–438, 1997.
[KMMS99] D. E. Kieras, D. E. Meyer, S. Mueller, and T. Seymour. Insights into work-
ing memory from the perspective of the EPIC architecture for modeling
skilled perceptual-motor and cognitive human performance. In A. Miyake and
P. Shah, editors, Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Mainte-
nance and Executive Control. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1999.

17. 11
[Koh82] T. Kohenen. Self organized formation of topologically correct feature maps.
Biologicl Cybernetics, 43:59–69, 1982.
[KON95] T. Kitamura, Y. Otsuka, and T. Nakao. Imitation of animal behaviour with
use of a model of consciouness behaviour relation for a small robot. IEEE
International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, Tokyo, Japan,
1995.
[KWM97] D. E. Kieras, S. D. Wood, and D. E. Meyer. Predictive engineering models
based on the EPIC architecture for a multimodal high-performance human-
computer interaction task. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interac-
tion. 4, 4:230–275, 1997.
[LA93] C. Lebiere and J. R. Anderson. A connectionist Implementation of the ACT-R
production system. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, pages 635–640. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1993.
[LCAD93] J. Laird, C. B. Congdon, E. Altmann, and R. Doorenboos. The soar user’s
manual version 6, 1993.
[LHH91] J. Laird, M. Hucka, and S. Huffman. An analysis of Soar as an integrated
architecture. SIGART Bulletin 2, 1991.
[LHJ+90] R. Lewis, S. Huffman, B. John, J. Laird, J. Lehman, A. Newell., P. Rosen-
bloom, T. Simon, and S. Tessler. Soar as a unified theory of cognition: Spring
1990. In PA: Cognitive Science Society, editor, Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cambridge, MA. pp. 1035-1942.
Pittsburgh, pages 1035–1942, 1990.
[LLN91] J. Lehman, R. Lewis, and A. Newell. Integrating knowledge sources in lan-
guage comprehension. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of
the Cognitive Science Society. Pittsburgh. PA: Cognitive Science Society, 1991.
[LMA+91] P. âĂćLangely, K. B. McKusick, J. A. Allen, W. F. Iba, and K. Thompson. A
design for the ICARUS Architecture. SIGART Bulletin 2, 1991.

18. 12
[LRN87] J. E. Laird, P. S. Rosenbloom, and A. Newell. Soar: An architecture for
general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33:1–64, 1987.
[Mat70] H. R. Maturana. Biology of Cognition. Univ. Illinois, Urbana, IL,Research
Rep. BCL 90, 1970.
[McC81] J. L. McClelland. Retrieving general and specific information from stored
knowledge of specifics. In Proceedings of 3rd Annual Meeting of the Cognition
Science Society, pages 170–172, 1981.
[MD89] J. Moody and C. J. Darken. Fast learning in networks of locally tuned pro-
cessing unit. Neural Computation, 1:281–294, 1989.
[Min67] M. Minsky. Finite and Infinite Machine. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1967.
[Min75] M. Minsky. A framework for representing knowledge. The Psychology of
Computer Vision(P. H. Winston,Ed) Mc Graw Hill, pages 211–277, 1975.
[Min86] M. Minsky. The Society of Mind. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1986.
[MK97a] D. E. Meyer and D. E. Kieras. A computational theory of executive cognitive
process and multiple task performance: Part1, basic mechanism. Psychological
Review, 104:3–65, 1997.
[MK97b] D. E. Meyer and D. E. Kieras. A computational theory of executive cogni-
tive process and multiple task performance: Part2, accounts of psychological
refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104:749–791, 1997.
[MK99] D. E. Meyer and D. E. Kieras. Precis to a practical unified theory of cognition
and action: Some lessons from computational modeling of human multiple-
task performance. In D. Gopher and A. Koriat, editors, Attention and Per-
formance XVII, page 17. M, -88). Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[MKL+95] D. E. Meyer, D. E. Kieras, E. Lauber, E. Schumacher, J. Glass, E. Zurbriggen,
L. Gmeindl, and D. Apfelblat. Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-
task performance without pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks.
Acta Psychologica, 90:163–190, 1995.

19. 13
[MP43] W. S. McCulloch and W. Pitts. A logical calculas of ideas immanent in nervous
activity. Bull. Math. Biophys, 5:115–113, 1943.
[MP69] M. Minsky and S. Papert. Perceptrons: An introduction to Computational
Geometry. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1969.
[MV80] H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition. The realization
of the living, Ser. Boston Studies on the philosophy of Science.Dordrecht,
Holland : D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980.
[MV87] H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela. The Tree of knowledge: The Biological roots
of Human Understanding. Boston New Science Library, 1987.
[New90] A. Newell. Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge MA, Harvard University
Press, 1990.
[Noe05] A. Noe. Action in Perception. 289 MIT Press, 2005.
[NS72] A. Newell and H. A. Simon. Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.
[NS76] A. Newell and H. A. Simon. Computer science as emperical enquiry:symbol
and search. Communication of the Association for Computing Machin-
ery(ACM), 3(19):113–126, 1976.
[NSS59] A. Newell, J. C. Shaw, and H. A. Simon. Report on general problem solv-
ing program. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Processing, pages 256–264, Paris, 1959.
[OA01] J. K. O’Regan and A.Noe. A sensorimotor account of visual consciousness.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(5):939–973, 2001.
[Res01] S. Restivo. Bringing up and booting up: social theory and the emergence of
socially intelligent robots. IEEE, 4:2110–2117, 2001.
[RLN93] P. Rosenbloom, J. Laird, and A. Newell. ed. The Soar Papers: Research on
Integrated Intelligence, 1993.

20. 14
[RLNM91] P. âĂćRosenbloom, J. Laird, A. Newell, and R. McCarl. A preliminary analysis
of the Soar architecture as a basis for general intelligence. Artificial Intelli-
gence, 47:289–235, 1991.
[RMG86] D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, and PDP Research Group. Parallel dis-
tributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognitions. In Vol
1: Foundations; Vol 2: Psychological and Biological models. MIT Press, 1986.
[Ros58] F. Rosenblatt. The perceptron: A probablistic model for information storage
organization in the brain. Psy. Rev., 65:386–408, 1958.
[SA77] R. C. Schank and R. P. Abelson. Scripts , plans, goals and understanding: an
inquiry into human structures. Hillslade, N J:Erlbaum, page 248, 1977.
[SA97] R. Sun and F. Alexandre. Connectionist symbolic integration. Hill-
slade,NJ:Erlbaum, 1997.
[Sam59] A. L. Samuel. Some studies in machine learing using the game of checkers.
IBM journal, 3(3):210–229, 1959.
[SB94] R. Sun and L. Brookman. Computational Architectures Integrating Neural and
Symbolic Process. Kluwer, Academic Publisher, 1994.
[SLG+99] E. H. Schumacher, E. J. Lauber, J. M. B. Glass, E. L. Zurbriggen, L. Gmeindl,
D. E. Kieras, and D. E. Meyer. Concurrent response-selection processes
in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task
scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 25:1–24, 1999.
[Smo87] P. Smolensky. On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and
Brain Science, 11(1):1–74, 1987.
[SPS01] R. Sun, T. Peterson, and C. Sessions. Beyond simple rule extraction: acquiring
planning knowledge from neural networks. Proceedings of WIRN’01, Salermo,
Italy, 2001.
[Str52] C. Strachey. Logical or non mathematical programmes. In Proceedings of
the Association for Computing Machinery Meeting, Association of Computing
Machinery, pages 46–59, Newyork, 1952. ACM’52.

21. 15
[Sun94] R. Sun. Integrating Rules and Connectionism for Robust Reasoning. John
Willey and Sons NewYork, NY 1994, 1994.
[Sun95] R. Sun. Robust reasoning: Integrating rule based and similarity based rea-
soning. Artificial Intelligence, 75:241–295, 1995.
[Sun06] R. Sun. The CLARION cognitive architecture: Extending cognitive modeling
to social simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006.
[Sun07] R. Sun. The motivational and metacognitive control in CLARION. Modeling
Integrated Cognitive Systems In: W. Gray, 2007.
[Sun08] R. Sun. Introduction to computational cognitive modeling. In Cambridge
handbook of computational psychology, page 3âĂŞ19. Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2008.
[Tho07] E. Thompson. Mind in Life Biology, Phenomenology and the Sciences of Mind.
(1)568 Harvard University Press, 2007.
[Tur50] A. M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59:433–460, 1950.
[Wei66] J. Weizenbaum. A computer program for the study of natural language com-
munication between man and machine. Communications of the Association
for Computing Machinery(ACM), 9(1):36–55, 1966.
[WF86] D. Waltz and J. Feldman. Connectionist models and their implications. Albex,
Norward NJ, 1986, 1986.