Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (6):714-715 (2008)
|Abstract||We argue that neural networks for semantic cognition, as proposed by Rogers & McClelland (R&M), do not acquire semantics and therefore cannot be the basis for a theory of semantic cognition. The reason is that the neural networks simply perform statistical categorization procedures, and these do not require any semantics for their successful operation. We conclude that this has severe consequences for the semantic cognition views of R&M|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kevin D. Hoover & Stephen J. Perez (2000). Three Attitudes Towards Data Mining. Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):195-210.
Aris Spanos (2000). Revisiting Data Mining: 'Hunting' with or Without a License. Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):231-264.
Herman T. Tavani (1999). KDD, Data Mining, and the Challenge for Normative Privacy. Ethics and Information Technology 1 (4):265-273.
Steven Cook (2001). Observations on the Practice of Data-Mining: Comments on the JEM Symposium. Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (3):415-419.
Roger E. Backhouse & Mary S. Morgan (2000). Introduction: Is Data Mining a Methodological Problem? Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):171-181.
Clinton A. Greene (2000). I Am Not, nor Have I Ever Been a Member of a Data-Mining Discipline. Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):217-230.
Herman T. Tavani (1999). Informational Privacy, Data Mining, and the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology 1 (2):137-145.
Dinah Payne & Cherie Courseault Trumbach (2009). Data Mining: Proprietary Rights, People and Proposals. Business Ethics 18 (3):241-252.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,456 of 739,345 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,345 )
How can I increase my downloads?