David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):611-614 (2003)
We share with Anderson & Lebiere (A&L) (and with Newell before them) the goal of developing a domain-general framework for modeling cognition, and we take seriously the issue of evaluation criteria. We advocate a more focused approach than the one reflected in Newell's criteria, based on analysis of failures as well as successes of models brought into close contact with experimental data. A&L attribute the shortcomings of our parallel-distributed processing framework to a failure to acknowledge a symbolic level of thought. Our framework does acknowledge a symbolic level, contrary to their claim. What we deny is that the symbolic level is the level at which the principles of cognitive processing should be formulated. Models cast at a symbolic level are sometimes useful as high-level approximations of the underlying mechanisms of thought. The adequacy of this approximation will continue to increase as symbolic modelers continue to incorporate principles of parallel distributed processing.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ron Sun, Andrew Coward & Michael J. Zenzen (2005). On Levels of Cognitive Modeling. Philosophical Psychology 18 (5):613-637.
John R. Anderson, Christian Lebiere, Marsha Lovett & Lynne Reder (1998). ACT-R: A Higher-Level Account of Processing Capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):831-832.
Jonathan K. Foster (2000). A Multidimensional Approach to the Mind-Brain: Behaviour Versus Schemata Versus Cognition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):540-540.
William P. Bechtel (1988). Connectionism and Rules and Representation Systems: Are They Compatible? Philosophical Psychology 1 (1):5-16.
John R. Anderson & Christian Lebiere (2003). The Newell Test for a Theory of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):587-601.
Marco Mirolli & Domenico Parisi (2009). Language as a Cognitive Tool. Minds and Machines 19 (4):517-528.
Peter Gardenfors (2004). Conceptual Spaces as a Framework for Knowledge Representation. Mind and Matter 2 (2):9-27.
Chris Eliasmith, Structure Without Symbols: Providing a Distributed Account of High-Level Cognition.
William P. Bechtel (1994). Levels of Description and Explanation in Cognitive Science. Minds and Machines 4 (1):1-25.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #188,281 of 1,102,883 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #120,639 of 1,102,883 )
How can I increase my downloads?