Moving the goal posts: a reply to Dawson and Piercey |
| |
Authors: | Istvan S. N. Berkeley |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Philosophy and Cognitive Science, The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, P.O. Box 43770, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Berkeley [Minds Machines 10 (2000) 1] described a methodology that showed the subsymbolic nature of an artificial neural network system that had been trained on a logic problem, originally described by Bechtel and Abrahamsen [Connectionism and the mind. Blackwells, Cambridge, MA, 1991]. It was also claimed in the conclusion of this paper that the evidence was suggestive that the network might, in fact, count as a symbolic system. Dawson and Piercey [Minds Machines 11 (2001) 197] took issue with this latter claim. They described some lesioning studies that they argued showed that Berkeley’s (2000) conclusions were premature. In this paper, these lesioning studies are replicated and it is shown that the effects that Dawson and Piercey rely upon for their argument are merely an artifact of a threshold function they chose to employ. When a threshold function much closer to that deployed in the original studies is used, the significant effects disappear. |
| |
Keywords: | Artificial neural network anaylysis Lesioning studies Subsymbolic systems Symbol systems |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|