Robert F. Hadley
Abstract
In his discussion of results which I (with Michael Hayward) recently reported in this journal, Kenneth Aizawa takes issue with two of our conclusions, which are: (a) that our connectionist model provides a basis for explaining systematicity “within the realm of sentence comprehension, and subject to a limited range of syntax”; (b) that the model does not employ structure-sensitive processing, and that this is clearly true in the early stages of the network‘s training. Ultimately, Aizawa rejects both (a) and (b) for reasons which I think are ill-founded. In what follows, I offer a defense of our position. In particular, I argue (1) that Aizawa adopts a standard of explanation that many accepted scientific explanations could not meet, and (2) that Aizawa misconstrues the relevant meaning of ’structure-sensitive process‘.
- Aizawa, K. (1997), 'Exhibiting versus Explaining Systematicity: A Reply to Hadley and Hayward', Minds and Machines. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Aizawa, K. (forthcoming), 'Explaining Systematicity,' Mind and Language.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J.A. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1988), 'Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis,' Cognition, 28, 3-71.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fodor, J.A. and McLaughlin, B.P. (1990), 'Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity: Why Smolensky's Solution Doesn't Work', Cognition, 35, 183-204.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hadley, R.F. (1996), 'Connectionism, Systematicity, and Nomic Necessity,' Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Society, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Hadley, R.F. (forthcoming), 'Cognition, Systematicity and Nomic Necessity', Mind and Language.Google Scholar
- Hadley, R.F. and Hayward, M.B. (1997), 'Strong Semantic Systematicity from Hebbian Connectionist Learning,' Minds and Machines. Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
Connectionism, Systematicity, and the Frame Problem
This paper investigates connectionism‘s potential to solve the frame problem. The frame problem arises in the context of modelling the human ability to see the relevant consequences of events in a situation. It has been claimed to be unsolvable for ...
On The Proper Treatment of Semantic Systematicity
The past decade has witnessed the emergence of a novel stance on semantic representation, and its relationship to context sensitivity. Connectionist-minded philosophers, including Clark and van Gelder, have espoused the merits of viewing hidden-layer, ...
Strong Semantic Systematicity from Hebbian Connectionist Learning
Fodor‘s and Pylyshyn‘s stand on systematicity in thought and language has been debated and criticized. Van Gelder and Niklasson, among others, have argued that Fodor and Pylyshyn offer no precise definition of systematicity. However, our concern here is ...
Comments