Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):628-628 (2003)
|Abstract||The criterion of computational universality for an architecture should be replaced by the notion of compliancy, where a model built within an architecture is compliant to the extent that the model allows the architecture to determine the processing. The test should be that the architecture does easily – that is, enables a compliant model to do – what people do easily.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian P. McLaughlin & F. Warfield (1994). The Allure of Connectionism Reexamined. Synthese 101 (3):365-400.
Ron Sun (2004). Desiderata for Cognitive Architectures. Philosophical Psychology 17 (3):341-373.
Camilo J. Cela-Conde & Gisèle Marty (1997). Mind Architecture and Brain Architecture. Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):327-340.
Niels Taatgen & John R. Anderson (2010). The Past, Present, and Future of Cognitive Architectures. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):693-704.
Richard P. Cooper (2006). Cognitive Architectures as Lakatosian Research Programs: Two Case Studies. Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):199-220.
Prasad Tadepalli (2003). Cognitive Architectures Have Limited Explanatory Power. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):622-623.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #245,904 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?