Better ways to articulate the levels distinction

There are better ways to articulate the levels distinction.

B. Chadraskaran, Ashok Goel, and Dean Allemang (1988); Gardner Quarnton (1988); and Andreew Woodfield and Adam Morton (1988).
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
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