Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1037-1038 (1999)
|Abstract||Clahsen's claim to contribute arguments for dual mechanisms based on rule analysis and against connectionist proposals is refuted. Both types of modeling are inadequate for principled reasons.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Denis Mareschal & Thomas R. Shultz (1997). From Neural Constructivism to Children's Cognitive Development: Bridging the Gap. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):571-572.
John G. Taylor (1997). Neural Networks for Consciousness. Neural Networks 10:1207-27.
Edmund T. Rolls (1997). Consciousness in Neural Networks? Neural Networks 10:1227-1303.
Paul Skokowski (2007). Networks with Attitudes. Artificial Intelligence and Society 22 (3):461-470.
Stan Franklin & Max Garzon (1992). On Stability and Solvability (or, When Does a Neural Network Solve a Problem?). Minds and Machines 2 (1):71-83.
Enrico Blanzieri (1997). Dynamical Learning Algorithms for Neural Networks and Neural Constructivism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):559-559.
Dan Hunter (1999). Out of Their Minds: Legal Theory in Neural Networks. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):129-151.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2008). Some Neural Networks Compute, Others Don't. Neural Networks 21 (2-3):311-321.
Robert F. Hadley (1993). Connectionism, Explicit Rules, and Symbolic Manipulation. Minds and Machines 3 (2):183-200.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #188,971 of 723,182 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?