Graduate studies at Western
Psycoloquy 9 (30) (1998)
|Abstract||Green offers us two options: either connectionist models are literal models of brain activity or they are mere instruments, with little or no ontological significance. According to Green, only the first option renders connectionist models genuinely explanatory. I think there is a third possibility. Connectionist models are not literal models of brain activity, but neither are they mere instruments. They are abstract, IDEALISED models of the brain that are capable of providing genuine explanations of cognitive phenomena|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Josep E. Corbí (1993). Classical and Connectionist Models: Levels of Description. Synthese 95 (2):141 - 168.
Daniel C. Dennett (1991). Mother Nature Versus the Walking Encyclopedia. In William Ramsey, Stephen P. Stich & D. Rumelhart (eds.), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mike Page (2000). Sticking to the Manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):496-505.
Ron Sun (2003). Conceptions and Misconceptions of Connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621.
Mike Page (2000). Connectionist Modelling in Psychology: A Localist Manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):443-467.
Chris Code (1999). Re-Assembling the Brain: Are Cell Assemblies the Brain's Language for Recovery of Function? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):284-284.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #90,669 of 740,538 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,538 )
How can I increase my downloads?