Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Philosophy 98 (4):167 - 185 (2001)
|Abstract||The current debate over systematicity concerns the formal conditions a scheme of mental representation must satisfy in order to explain the systematicity of thought.1 The systematicity of thought is assumed to be a pervasive property of minds, and can be characterized (roughly) as follows: anyone who can think T can think systematic variants of T, where the systematic variants of T are found by permuting T’s constituents. So, for example, it is an alleged fact that anyone who can think the thought that John loves Mary can think the thought that Mary loves John, where the latter thought is a systematic variant of the former.|
|Keywords||systematicity language of thought Fodor connectionism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kent Johnson (2004). On the Systematicity of the Language of Thought. Journal of Philosophy 101 (3):111-139.
Wayne A. Davis (2005). On Begging the Systematicity Question. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:399-404.
S. Phillips (1998). Are Feedforward and Recurrent Networks Systematic? Analysis and Implications for a Connectionist Cognitive Architecture. .
Robert C. Cummins, James Blackmon & David Byrd (2005). What Systematicity Isn't. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:405-408.
Brian P. McLaughlin (2009). Systematicity Redux. Synthese 170 (2):251 - 274.
James Blackmon, David Byrd, Robert C. Cummins, Pierre Poirier, Martin Roth & George Schwarz (2001). Systematicity and the Cognition of Structured Domains. Journal of Philosophy 98 (4):1-19.
Jurgen Schroder (1998). Knowledge of Rules, Causal Systematicity, and the Language of Thought. Synthese 117 (3):313-330.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,498 of 739,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,396 )
How can I increase my downloads?