The strengths of – and some of the challenges for – bayesian models of cognition
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):89-90 (2009)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| 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: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesNick Chater & Mike Oaksford (eds.) (2008). The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science. OUP Oxford.
Johan Kwisthout, Todd Wareham & Iris van Rooij (2011). Bayesian Intractability Is Not an Ailment That Approximation Can Cure. Cognitive Science 35 (5):779-784.
Chris Eliasmith, Structure Without Symbols: Providing a Distributed Account of High-Level Cognition.
Amy Perfors (2012). Bayesian Models of Cognition: What's Built in After All? Philosophy Compass 7 (2):127-138.
Frederick Eberhardt & David Danks (2011). Confirmation in the Cognitive Sciences: The Problematic Case of Bayesian Models. Minds and Machines 21 (3):389-410.
Dedre Gentner (2001). Exhuming Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (4):669-669.
M. Colombo & P. Series (2012). Bayes in the Brain--On Bayesian Modelling in Neuroscience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):697-723.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-13Total downloads2 ( #232,265 of 548,999 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,999 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
