comments
Respond
Comment on the article
Add a citation
Reply with an article
Start a new topic
Edit
Edit article
Delete article
Share
Invite
Link
Embed
Social media
Avatar
View
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Article ✓
Outline
Document
Down
All
Page
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Updates
Subscribe to updates
Get updates
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
Pause updates
Contact us
Treatment of levels is Eliminativist
Smolensky's treatment of levels is eliminativist.
Georges Rey (1988), Walter Schneider (1988) and David Touretzky (1988).
RELATED ARTICLES
Explain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence☜A collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?—exploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.☜F1CEB7
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
Can computers think? [1]☜Can a computational system possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding? ☜FFB597
⌃
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]☜Connectionist networks can possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding.☜59C6EF
⌃
The Subsymbolic Paradigm
The Subsymbolic Paradigm☜The fundamental level of analysis for studying the mind is the subconceptual level, which describes fine-grained subsymbolic activity in a connectionist network. ☜98CE71
⌃
Smolensky's treatment of levels is problematic
Smolensky's treatment of levels is problematic☜Smolenskys account of the conceptual, subconceptual, and neural levels (and the relations between them) is problematic.☜EF597B
■
Treatment of levels is Eliminativist
Treatment of levels is Eliminativist☜Smolenskys treatment of levels is eliminativist.☜98CE71
⇥
Georges Rey
Georges Rey☜Arguments advanced by Georges Rey.☜FFFACD
□
Better ways to articulate the levels distinction
Better ways to articulate the levels distinction☜There are better ways to articulate the levels distinction.☜98CE71
□
Conceptual and subconceptual part-whole relationship
Conceptual and subconceptual part-whole relationship☜The relationship between the conceptual and subconceptual levels is not one of approximation but of part-whole.☜98CE71
□
Contact between levels is closer than suggested
Contact between levels is closer than suggested☜There should be closer contact between lthe evels than Smolensky suggests.☜98CE71
□
Flawed analogy between Newtonian and Quantum physics
Flawed analogy between Newtonian and Quantum physics☜The analogy between Somolenskys levels and Newtonian and quantum physics is flawed.☜98CE71
□
Insufficient focus on the neural level
Insufficient focus on the neural level☜There should be more focus on the neural level.☜98CE71
□
Levels are nothing but pragmatic constructs
Levels are nothing but pragmatic constructs☜Smolenskys levels are nothing but pragmatic constructs.☜98CE71
□
Pursues a limited and limiting goal
Pursues a limited and limiting goal☜The goal of cognitive science is not conceptual and neural levels with subsymbols in between, but rather a golden age in which a thoroughly understood neuroscience informs us a thoroughly understood cognitive psychology.☜98CE71
□
Three level distiction is inchoerent
Three level distiction is inchoerent☜Smolenskys three level distinction is incoherent.☜98CE71
□
Three-level distinction is too simple
Three-level distinction is too simple☜The three levels distinction is too simple. There are more levels and modelling strategies than just three.☜98CE71
□
Treatment of levels is implementationist
Treatment of levels is implementationist☜Smolenskys treatment of levels is implementationist.☜98CE71
□
The extremist fallacy
The extremist fallacy☜Opponents assume there are only two positions on the connectionism/symbolism issue: eliminativism and implementationism—and that to support one is to reject the other. The subsymbolic paradigm rejects both, forging a limitivist middle road.☜EF597B
□
Graph of this discussion
Graph of this discussion☜Click this to see the whole debate, excluding comments, in graphical form☜dcdcdc
Enter the title of your article
Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Enter the main body of your article
Prefer more work space? Try the
big editor
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
November 2024
>
<<
November 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
44
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
46
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#923
Node type:
SupportiveArgument
Entry date (GMT):
8/19/2006 4:04:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
12/7/2007 10:32:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
1
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
Enter comment
Select article text to quote
Cancel
Enter
welcome text
First name
Last name
Email
Skip
Join
x
Select file to upload