David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (1):1-23 (1988)
A set of hypotheses is formulated for a connectionist approach to cognitive modeling. These hypotheses are shown to be incompatible with the hypotheses underlying traditional cognitive models. The connectionist models considered are massively parallel numerical computational systems that are a kind of continuous dynamical system. The numerical variables in the system correspond semantically to fine-grained features below the level of the concepts consciously used to describe the task domain. The level of analysis is intermediate between those of symbolic cognitive models and neural models. The explanations of behavior provided are like those traditional in the physical sciences, unlike the explanations provided by symbolic models
|Keywords||Cognition Connectionism Psychology|
|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
Dana H. Ballard (1986). Cortical Connections and Parallel Processing: Structure and Function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9 (1):67.
Jon Barwise (1986). Information and Circumstance. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27 (July):324-338.
Tyler Burge (1986). Individualism and Psychology. Philosophical Review 95 (January):3-45.
Citations of this work BETA
Jerry A. Fodor & Zenon W. Pylyshyn (1988). Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture. Cognition 28 (1-2):3-71.
William P. Bechtel (1994). Levels of Description and Explanation in Cognitive Science. Minds and Machines 4 (1):1-25.
David J. Cole (1991). Artificial Intelligence and Personal Identity. Synthese 88 (September):399-417.
Steven Pinker & Alan Prince (1988). On Language and Connectionism. Cognition 28 (1-2):73-193.
Carol E. Cleland (1993). Is the Church-Turing Thesis True? Minds and Machines 3 (3):283-312.
Similar books and articles
Paul Smolensky (1991). Connectionism, Constituency and the Language of Thought. In Barry M. Loewer & Georges Rey (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Blackwell.
Robert C. Cummins & Georg Schwarz (1987). Radical Connectionism. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 26 (S1):43-61.
David Kirsh (1987). Putting a Price on Cognition. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 26 (S1):119-35.
Claire F. O'Loughlin & Annette Karmiloff-Smith (2003). Evaluating Connectionism: A Developmental Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):614-615.
Jerry A. Fodor & Brian P. McLaughlin (1990). Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity: Why Smolensky's Solution Doesn't Work. Cognition 35 (2):183-205.
C. R. Legg (1988). Connectionism and Physiological Psychology: A Marriage Made in Heaven? Philosophical Psychology 1 (3):263-78.
Terence E. Horgan & John L. Tienson (1987). Settling Into a New Paradigm. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 26 (S1):97-113.
Stephen L. Mills (1989). Connectionism, the Classical Theory of Cognition, and the Hundred Step Constraint. Acta Analytica 4 (4):5-38.
William P. Bechtel (1987). Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 26:17-41.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads159 ( #5,033 of 1,099,911 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #15,787 of 1,099,911 )
How can I increase my downloads?