Why Connectionism is Such a Good Thing. A Criticism of Fodor and Pylyshyn's Criticism of Smolensky

Philosophica 47 (1991)
Abstract This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,562
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Empirical and Theoretical Active Memory: The Proper Context.Daniel J. Amit - 1995 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 (4):645.

View all 23 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Connectionism and Cognition: Why Fodor and Pylyshyn Are Wrong.James H. Fetzer - 1992 - In A. Clark & Ronald Lutz (eds.), Connectionism in Context. Springer Verlag. pp. 305-319.
Fodor and Pylyshyn on Connectionism.Michael V. Antony - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (3):321-41.
Connectionism and the Language of Thought.Mark Rowlands - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):485-503.
The Constituent Structure of Connectionist Mental States.Paul Smolensky - 1987 - Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 26:137-60.
Connecting Object to Symbol in Modeling Cognition.Stevan Harnad - 1992 - In A. Clark & Ronald Lutz (eds.), Connectionism in Context. Springer Verlag. pp. 75--90.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-03-01

Total downloads
25 ( #241,435 of 2,268,370 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #373,468 of 2,268,370 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature