Systematicity is a conceptual not empirical law

Systematicity fails to argue against the empirical hypotheses of the connectionist architecture,  because it's a conceptual law that deals with holistic thought ascriptions rather than with in-the-head thought processes.

That is, systematicity tells about how we judge whether other people are thinking; it does not tell us about what is going on inside their heads.

Andy Clark, 1991.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
The Connectionist Dilemma
Systematicity is a conceptual not empirical law
Claim is unsupported
The challenge stands
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 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