comments

Smolensky's treatment of levels is problematic

Smolensky's account of the conceptual, subconceptual, and neural levels (and the relations between them) is problematic.

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
⌃
The Subsymbolic Paradigm
■
Smolensky's treatment of levels is problematic
↳
Better ways to articulate the levels distinction
↳
Conceptual and subconceptual part-whole relationship
↳
Contact between levels is closer than suggested
↳
Flawed analogy between Newtonian and Quantum physics
↳
Insufficient focus on the neural level
↳
Levels are nothing but pragmatic constructs
↳
Pursues a limited and limiting goal
↳
Three level distiction is inchoerent
↳
Three-level distinction is too simple
↳
Treatment of levels is Eliminativist
↳
Treatment of levels is implementationist
↳
The extremist fallacy
□
Common sense and connectionism
□
The sensorimotor system
□
Between-module structures
□
Connectionist networks can’t elaborate capacities quickly
□
Statistical rationality needed
□
Symbolic processing in specially crafted networks
□
Too much representation, not enough dynamics
□
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