Connectionist networks can think without following rules

Like humans, connectionist networks exhibit fluid, intelligent behaviour without following rigid, explicit rules. In general, they are trained to exhibit intelligent behaviour rather than being programmed with rules.

Notes: Also see the"Do humans use rules as physical symbol systems do?" arguments on Map 3.

Terence Horgan and John Tiensen (1991) provide a full characterisation of classical and connectionist notions of rule following.

Fred Adams, Kenneth Aizawa, & Gary Fuller (1992) provide a detailed treatment of the relation between different kinds of rules, arguing that the differences between them should not be overstated.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
Connectionist networks can think without following rules
Regularity without rules
Representations without rules
The Past-Tense Acquisition Model
Explicit rules are necessary in plastic domains
The Rule-Following Assumption
The Connectionist Biological Assumption
The Connectionist Dilemma
The Subsymbolic Paradigm
Connectionist computers lack commonsense
Connectionist networks are formal systems
Connectionists fall into a computational mindset
One-layer perceptrons can’t compute certain functions
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip