comments

Three-level distinction is too simple

The three levels distinction is too simple. There are more levels and modelling strategies than just three.

Gardner Quarnton (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
■
Three-level distinction is too simple
□
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
□
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