Smolensky's treatment of levels is problematic
Smolensky's account of the conceptual, subconceptual, and neural levels (and the relations between them) is problematic.
Immediately related elementsHow this works
-
Artificial Intelligence Â»Artificial Intelligence
▲
Can computers think? [1] Â»Can computers think? [1]
▲
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a] Â»Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
▲
The Subsymbolic Paradigm Â»The Subsymbolic Paradigm
■
Smolensky's treatment of levels is problematic
●
Better ways to articulate the levels distinction Â»Better ways to articulate the levels distinction
●
Conceptual and subconceptual part-whole relationship Â»Conceptual and subconceptual part-whole relationship
●
Contact between levels is closer than suggested Â»Contact between levels is closer than suggested
●
Flawed analogy between Newtonian and Quantum physics Â»Flawed analogy between Newtonian and Quantum physics
●
Insufficient focus on the neural level Â»Insufficient focus on the neural level
●
Levels are nothing but pragmatic constructs Â»Levels are nothing but pragmatic constructs
●
Pursues a limited and limiting goal Â»Pursues a limited and limiting goal
●
Three level distiction is inchoerent Â»Three level distiction is inchoerent
●
Three-level distinction is too simple Â»Three-level distinction is too simple
●
Treatment of levels is Eliminativist Â»Treatment of levels is Eliminativist
●
Treatment of levels is implementationist Â»Treatment of levels is implementationist
●
The extremist fallacy Â»The extremist fallacy
+Commentaires (0)
+Citations (0)
+About