Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):559-559 (1997)
|Abstract||The present commentary addresses the Quartz & Sejnowski (Q&S) target article from the point of view of the dynamical learning algorithm for neural networks. These techniques implicitly adopt Q&S's neural constructivist paradigm. Their approach hence receives support from the biological and psychological evidence. Limitations of constructive learning for neural networks are discussed with an emphasis on grammar learning.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
M. E. J. Raijmakers (1997). Is the Learning Paradox Resolved? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):573-574.
Michael Lamport Commons (2008). Stacked Neural Networks Must Emulate Evolution's Hierarchical Complexity. World Futures 64 (5 - 7):444 – 451.
Dan Lloyd (1998). The Fables of Lucy R.: Association and Dissociation in Neural Networks. In Dan J. Stein & J. Ludick (eds.), Neural Networks and Psychopathology. Cambridge University Press.
Hannes Leitgeb (2005). Interpreted Dynamical Systems and Qualitative Laws: From Neural Networks to Evolutionary Systems. Synthese 146 (1-2):189 - 202.
Denis Mareschal & Thomas R. Shultz (1997). From Neural Constructivism to Children's Cognitive Development: Bridging the Gap. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):571-572.
Stan Franklin & Max Garzon (1992). On Stability and Solvability (or, When Does a Neural Network Solve a Problem?). Minds and Machines 2 (1).
Andreas Demetriou (2000). From Neural Constructivism to Cognitive Constructivism: The Steps to Be Taken. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):781-782.
Dan Hunter (1999). Out of Their Minds: Legal Theory in Neural Networks. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3).
Gualtiero Piccinini (2008). Some Neural Networks Compute, Others Don't. Neural Networks 21 (2-3):311-321.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #202,008 of 549,117 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?