Classical and connectionist models: Levels of description
Synthese 95 (2):141 - 168 (1993)
| Abstract | To begin, I introduce an analysis of interlevel relations that allows us to offer an initial characterization of the debate about the way classical and connectionist models relate. Subsequently, I examine a compatibility thesis and a conditional claim on this issue.With respect to the compatibility thesis, I argue that, even if classical and connectionist models are not necessarily incompatible, the emergence of the latter seems to undermine the best arguments for the Language of Thought Hypothesis, which is essential to the former. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesEric Lormand (1991). Classical and Connectionist Models. Dissertation, Mit
Brian P. McLaughlin & F. Warfield (1994). The Allure of Connectionism Reexamined. Synthese 101 (3):365-400.
Ron Sun (2003). Conceptions and Misconceptions of Connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621.
Murat Aydede (1997). Language of Thought: The Connectionist Contribution. Minds and Machines 7 (1):57-101.
Jonathan Opie (1998). Connectionist Modelling Strategies. Psycoloquy 9 (30).
John Hawthorne (1989). On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models. Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
Josep E. Corbi (1993). Classical and Connectionist Models: Levels of Description. Synthese 95 (2):141-68.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads10 ( #106,438 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
