If the arguments of chapter 1 are correct, associationist connectionist models (such as ultralocal ones) yield the clearest alternatives to the LOT hypothesis. While it may be that such models cannot provide a general account of cognition, they may account for important aspects of cognition, such as low-level perception (e.g., with the interactive activation model of reading) or the mechanisms which distinguish experts from novices at a given skill (e.g., with dependency-network models). Since these models stand a fighting chance of being applicable to some aspects of cognition, it is important from a philosophical standpoint that we have appropriate tools for understanding such models. In particular, we want to have a theory of the semantic content of representations in certain connectionist models. In this chapter, I want to consider the prospects for applying a specific sort of "fine-grained" theory of content to such models
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Logic in Cognitive Science: Bridging the Gap Between Symbolic and Connectionist Paradigms.Alistair Isaac & Jakub Szymanik - 2010 - Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research (2):279-309.
On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models.John Hawthorne - 1989 - Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
Classical and Connectionist Models: Levels of Description.Josep E. Corbí - 1993 - Synthese 95 (2):141 - 168.
Conceptions and Misconceptions of Connectionism.Ron Sun - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621.
What Kind of Explanation, If Any, is a Connectionist Net?Christopher D. Green & John Vervaeke - unknown
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #164,089 of 2,143,899 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #280,613 of 2,143,899 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.