Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 5 (3):235-255 (1992)
|Abstract||In their critique of connectionist models Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) dismiss such models as not being cognitive or psychological. Evaluating Fodor and Pylyshyn's critique requires examining what is required in characterizating models as 'cognitive'. The present discussion examines the various senses of this term. It argues the answer to the title question seems to vary with these different senses. Indeed, by one sense of the term, neither representa-tionalism nor connectionism is cognitive. General ramifications of such an appraisal are discussed and alternative avenues for cognitive research are suggested|
|Keywords||Cognitivism Psychology Representationalism Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jonathan Opie (1998). Connectionist Modelling Strategies. Psycoloquy 9 (30).
Alistair Isaac & Jakub Szymanik (2010). Logic in Cognitive Science: Bridging the Gap Between Symbolic and Connectionist Paradigms. Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research (2):279-309.
John Hawthorne (1989). On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models. Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
Ron Sun (2003). Conceptions and Misconceptions of Connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621.
Mark Rowlands (1994). Connectionism and the Language of Thought. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):485-503.
Michael V. Antony (1991). Fodor and Pylyshyn on Connectionism. Minds and Machines 1 (3):321-41.
Keith Butler (1993). Connectionism, Classical Cognitivism, and the Relation Between Cognitive and Implementational Levels of Analysis. Philosophical Psychology 6 (3):321-33.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #214,063 of 740,020 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,020 )
How can I increase my downloads?