|Abstract||The performance of symbolic inference tasks has long been a challenge to connectionists. In this paper, we present an extended survey of this area. Existing connectionist inference systems are reviewed, with particular reference to how they perform variable binding and rule- based reasoning and whether they involve distributed or localist representations. The bene®ts and disadvantages of different representations and systems are outlined, and conclusions drawn regarding the capabilities of connectionist inference systems when compared with symbolic inference systems or when used for cognitive modelling. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
John Hawthorne (1989). On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models. Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
Michael V. Antony (1991). Fodor and Pylyshyn on Connectionism. Minds and Machines 1 (3):321-41.
Paul Smolensky (1990). Tensor Product Variable Binding and the Representation of Symbolic Structures in Connectionist Systems. Artificial Intelligence 46:159-216.
Colin Martindale (2000). Localist Representations Are a Desirable Emergent Property of Neurologically Plausible Neural Networks. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):485-486.
Ron Sun (2003). Conceptions and Misconceptions of Connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621.
John E. Hummel (2000). Localism as a First Step Toward Symbolic Representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):480-481.
Mike Page (2000). Connectionist Modelling in Psychology: A Localist Manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):443-467.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,629 of 722,750 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,750 )
How can I increase my downloads?