Systematicity not enough to argue for classicism

Even if classicism provides the best account of systematicity, it doesn't follow that the mind has a classical architecture. Systematicity is just one of many phenomena that the theory of mind must explain (eg perception, imagination, emotion, etc).

To show that the mind has a classical architecture, then, the classicist must demonstrate that classicism does better than connectionism—or any other competing theory—accounting for all of the relevant phenomena, not just systematicity.

Michael Anthony, 1991.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
The Connectionist Dilemma
Systematicity not enough to argue for classicism
Anthony misrepresents the argument
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 explained by natural selection
Systematicity is a conceptual not empirical law
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