Philosophical Psychology 10 (1):25-40 (1997)
|Abstract||There is widespread belief that connectionist networks are dramatically different from classical or symbolic models. However, connectionists rarely test this belief by interpreting the internal structure of their nets. A new approach to interpreting networks was recently introduced by Berkeley et al. (1995). The current paper examines two implications of applying this method: (1) that the internal structure of a connectionist network can have a very classical appearance, and (2) that this interpretation can provide a cognitive theory that cannot be dismissed as a mere implementation.|
|Keywords||Connectionism Model Network Representation Science|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael R. W. Dawson & C. Darren Piercey (2001). On the Subsymbolic Nature of a PDP Architecture That Uses a Nonmonotonic Activation Function. Minds and Machines 11 (2):197-218.
M. R. W. Dawson, D. A. Medler, D. B. McCaughan, L. Willson & M. Carbonaro (2000). Using Extra Output Learning to Insert a Symbolic Theory Into a Connectionist Network. Minds and Machines 10 (2):171-201.
Peter beim Graben (2004). Incompatible Implementations of Physical Symbol Systems. Mind and Matter 2 (2):29-51.
David J. Chalmers (1993). Connectionism and Compositionality: Why Fodor and Pylyshyn Were Wrong. Philosophical Psychology 6 (3):305-319.
Martin Roth (2005). Program Execution in Connectionist Networks. Mind and Language 20 (4):448-467.
Michael R. W. Dawson & D. P. Schopflocher (1992). Autonomous Processing in Parallel Distributed Processing Networks. Philosophical Psychology 5 (2):199-219.
Dan Hunter (1999). Out of Their Minds: Legal Theory in Neural Networks. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3).
John Hawthorne (1989). On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models. Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #94,483 of 556,772 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,754 of 556,772 )
How can I increase my downloads?