Fodor and Pylyshyn on connectionism |
| |
Authors: | Michael V Antony |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 02139 Cambridge, MA, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) have argued that the cognitive architecture is not Connectionist. Their argument takes the following form: (1) the cognitive architecture is Classical; (2) Classicalism and Connectionism are incompatible; (3) therefore the cognitive architecture is not Connectionist. In this essay I argue that Fodor and Pylyshyn's defenses of (1) and (2) are inadequate. Their argument for (1), based on their claim that Classicalism best explains the systematicity of cognitive capacities, is an invalid instance of inference to the best explanation. And their argument for (2) turns out to be question-begging. The upshot is that, while Fodor and Pylyshyn have presented Connectionists with the important empirical challenge of explaining systematicity, they have failed to provide sufficient reason for inferring that the cognitive architecture is Classical and not Connectionist. |
| |
Keywords: | Cognitive architecture computationalism Connectionism implementation inference to the best explanation Language of Thought |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|