Conceptions and misconceptions of connectionism
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621 (2003)
| Abstract | This commentary examines one aspect of the target article – the comparison of ACT-R with connectionist models. It argues that conceptions of connectionist models should be broadened to cover the whole spectrum of work in this area, especially the so-called hybrid models. Doing so may change drastically ratings of connectionist models, and consequently shed more light on the developing field of cognitive architectures. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJonathan Opie (1998). Connectionist Modelling Strategies. Psycoloquy 9 (30).
John Hawthorne (1989). On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models. Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
William Ramsey, Stephen P. Stich & D. M. Rumelhart (eds.) (1991). Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keith Butler (1995). Representation and Computation in a Deflationary Assessment of Connectionist Cognitive Science. Synthese 104 (1):71-97.
James W. Garson (2003). Simulation and Connectionism: What is the Connection? Philosophical Psychology 16 (4):499-515.
Benny Shanon (1992). Are Connectionist Models Cognitive? Philosophical Psychology 5 (3):235-255.
Gerard O'Brien (1991). Is Connectionism Commonsense? Philosophical Psychology 4 (2):165-78.
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #203,804 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
