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