Semantic cognition or data mining?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (6):714-715 (2008)

Abstract

We argue that neural networks for semantic cognition, as proposed by Rogers & McClelland (R&M), do not acquire semantics and therefore cannot be the basis for a theory of semantic cognition. The reason is that the neural networks simply perform statistical categorization procedures, and these do not require any semantics for their successful operation. We conclude that this has severe consequences for the semantic cognition views of R&M

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,743

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
101 (#118,945)

6 months
1 (#387,390)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Add more references

Citations of this work

Symbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition.Max M. Louwerse - 2011 - Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):273-302.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Three Attitudes Towards Data Mining.Kevin D. Hoover & Stephen J. Perez - 2000 - Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):195-210.
Informational Privacy, Data Mining, and the Internet.Herman T. Tavani - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (2):137-145.
Introduction: Is Data Mining a Methodological Problem?Roger E. Backhouse & Mary S. Morgan - 2000 - Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):171-181.
KDD, Data Mining, and the Challenge for Normative Privacy.Herman T. Tavani - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (4):265-273.
Revisiting Data Mining: 'Hunting' with or Without a License.Aris Spanos - 2000 - Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (2):231-264.
Data Mining: Proprietary Rights, People and Proposals.Dinah Payne & Cherie Courseault Trumbach - 2009 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 18 (3):241-252.