Graduate studies at Western
Mind and Matter 2 (2):29-51 (2004)
|Abstract||Classical cognitive science assumes that intelligently behaving systems must be symbol processors that are implemented in physical systems such as brains or digital computers. By contrast, connectionists suppose that symbol manipulating systems could be approximations of neural networks dynamics. Both classicists and connectionists argue that symbolic computation and subsymbolic dynamics are incompatible, though on different grounds. While classicists say that connectionist architectures and symbol processors are either incompatible or the former are mere implementations of the latter, connectionists reply that neural networks might be incompatible with symbol processors because the latter cannot be implementations of the former. In this contribution, the notions of 'incompatibility' and 'implementation' will be criticized to show that they must be revised in the context of the dynamical system approach to cognitive science. Examples for implementations of symbol processors that are incompatible with respect to contextual topologies will be discussed|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bipin Indurkhya (1999). Creativity of Metaphor in Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):621-622.
Stevan Harnad (1995). Grounding Symbols in Sensorimotor Categories with Neural Networks. Institute of Electrical Engineers Colloquium on "Grounding Representations.
Vinod Goel (1991). Notationality and the Information Processing Mind. Minds and Machines 1 (2):129-166.
Angelo Cangelosi, Alberto Greco & Stevan Harnad (2002). Symbol Grounding and the Symbolic Theft Hypothesis. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (eds.), Simulating the Evolution of Language. Springer-Verlag.
Stevan Harnad (1994). Computation is Just Interpretable Symbol Manipulation; Cognition Isn't. Minds and Machines 4 (4):379-90.
Andrew Wells (1996). Situated Action, Symbol Systems and Universal Computation. Minds and Machines 6 (1):33-46.
Rolf A. Zwaan, Robert A. Stanfield & Carol J. Madden (1999). Perceptual Symbols in Language Comprehension: Can an Empirical Case Be Made? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):636-637.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,143 of 740,168 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 740,168 )
How can I increase my downloads?