comments

Systematicity explained by natural selection

Explanation by natural selection rather than by specific architectures—e.g. the language of thoughtavoids the need for supplementary evidence in support of a specific architectural hypothesis and helps explain how the mind develops over time.

David Braddon-Mitchell and John Fitzpatrick (1990).




RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
⌃
The Connectionist Dilemma
■
Systematicity explained by natural selection
↳
Natural selection doesn't explain systematicity
□
Burden of proof is on connectionism
□
Connectionism is associationism
□
Cognition isn’t always systematic
□
Connectionist machines possess compositional semantics
□
Connectionist representations avoid the dilemma
□
Systematicity is a conceptual not empirical law
□
Systematicity not enough to argue for classicism
□
The Three-Concept Monte
□
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