Fodor, J. and Z. Pylyshyn. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28: 3-71.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....a significant proportion of words only occur rarely [21, 22, 23] A language representation must be able to model the function of rarely occurring words. This characteristic is examined in Chapter 2. In a well known critique Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) identify some key features in natural language [24]. These include systematicity, the ability to move from particular examples to general rules. They also focus on the related concept of compositionality, that is the way in which sequences of words can be grouped together into meaningful elements, both syntactically and semantically. At the ....

....sentences, and analogous linguistic features can be identified. 4. For the related concept of compositionality the syntactic element is captured, again within the bounds of our task. Fodor and Pylyshyn say compositionality argues for . syntactic = semantic structure in sentences [24], and we have shown that elements of syntactic structure can be modelled in our system. Semantic structure is not addressed. Using simplified English We note that the Perkins technical manuals written in PACE can be processed slightly more easily than a computer science text. Taking the ....

J A Fodor and Z W Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition, 1988.

....traces the development of HSP, describes an example of HSP and discusses nature and importance of HSP before nally discussing the current state of HSP. 2 The development of HSP The development of representations supporting HSP was fueled by the attack on connectionism by Fodor Pylyshyn[7] who claimed that NNs did not support symbol processing and that were a way around this to be found it would involve merely reimplementing classical symbolic architectures in a neural substrate. In response, several techniques for representing symbolic structures in NNs appeared, most notably the ....

J. A. Fodor and Z. W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1-2):3-71, 1988.

....model construction are imposed. The recognition and retrieval of facts (a relation composed of several concepts) would be straight forward if they would be stored as attractors in the network. Nevertheless, when modeling fact retrieval, in light of economy and language productivity considerations [11], one cannot store every fact as an attractor on its own, and therefore another strategy should be pursued; facts will be represented as spatial temporal combinations of their constituents, which themselves will continue to be represented as attractors. Subsequently, the retrieval of facts is ....

Fodor J. and Pylyshyn Z.W., Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28: 3-71, 1988.

....a novel integration of connectionist and symbolic computation, and rests on both symbolic and connectionist technical advances [30, 31, 33, 34, 45, 44] e. SSP combines (a c) to shed new light on a central problem in the foundations of cognitive science, emphasized by Fodor f Pylyshyn [11] in their highly influential critique of counectionist theory: the explanation of how higher cognition can achieve, with finite and fixed resources, competence that is highly systematic, coherent, compositional, and productive [53, 571 . These results constitute direct progress in the ....

....their violation, are typically neglected. As part of the research on unccusativity in French including our HG work, we are carrying out detailed studies based on a data base of axceptability judgments which we have assembled: 8393 sentences involving 183 intransitive and 225 transitive verbs in 11 syntactic environments. Studies of the 3608 sentences in this data base involving intraasitive verbs have corroborated some of the claimed universal semantic and aspectua] tendencies, not corroborated others, and identified new regularities. Our conclusion at this point in our study is that, in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Jerry A. Fodor and Zenon W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3-71, 1988.

....Whereas we can identify elements like red, green, apple, and pear each with a corresponding (active) neuron, the embodiment of the structural brackets has been much debated, as far back as Hebb, in 1949. Some have even argued that structural representation is impossible in neural networks [2]. In the context of visual perception, the main concern is how to represent and or detect conjunctions such as red and apple. Creating a red apple detector for every location on the retina seems too expensive, at least for every sensible conjunction. The straight forward solution, as also ....

J.A. Fodor and Z.W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3--71, 1988.

....elements like red, green, apple, and pear each with a neuron that is activated when the element is used. However, the embodiment of the structural brackets has been much debated, as far back as Hebb [2] Some have even argued that such structural representation is impossible in neural networks [3]. # # # local feature detectors globalfeaturedetectors globalconjunctiondetector locationsonaninput grid,or retina Fig. 1. Global conjunction detection via aggregation of activity in local feature detectors. In the context of visual perception, the main concern is how to represent and or ....

J.A. Fodor and Z.W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3--71, 1988.

....the acquisition and use of language[69] Furthermore, the entire connectionist endeavor represented by the PDP group was called into question as being merely associationist, and therefore not adequate to the tasks of syntactic and semantic representation involved in human cognition as a whole. [36] We use the terms neural and connectionist interchangeably in referring to these networks. The problem boils down to two facts about neural networks that at rst glance seem fundamentally incompatible with important properties of language. First, connectionist representations (at least, those ....

....vectors obtained by the correlation operators. From a more theoretical standpoint, BoltzCONS, with its direct encoding of traditional symbolic operations CAR, CDR, PUSH, and POP, seems to fall into the category of mere implementation to which connectionism is relegated by its strongest critics [36]. This thesis presents an attempt to address both sets of questions, the practical and theoretical,by means of an architecture called In nite RAAM. Representing a new fusion between recurrent neural networks and fractal geometry, In nite RAAM allows us to understand the behavior of these networks ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J.A. Fodor and Z.W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:371, 1988.

....gained a wide popularity but have also attracted criticisms. The biological plausibility of neural models is controversial. There is, in fact, a wide gap in terms of complexity between biological and artificial neural systems. A more philosophical criticism was presented by Fodor and Phylyshyn [Fodor and Pylyshyn, 1988] who addressed the capacity of these models to account for sistematicity and compositionality. This critical position, somehow favourable to the symbolic approach, led to a violent debate [Smolensky, 1988, Fodor and McMaughlin, 1990] that showed how the cognitive science community was divided on ....

....placed in the framework of cognitive pragmatics. Two experiments, as well as the results of the simulations, are described. 4.1 Cognitive Modelling with Radial Basis Function Networks The symbolic tradition has been the dominant approach to cognitive modelling for a long time. Fodor and Pylyshyn [Fodor and Pylyshyn, 1988] two of the most representative theorists claim that only a system with symbolic representations, possessing constituent structure, can adequately model cognitive processes. Only the analysis at the level of symbolic processing, they maintain, is relevant to cognitive theorizing, and this ....

Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3--71.

....most artificial intelligence tasks such as language processing and reasoning the need arises to represent data structures such as sequences and trees. Originally, these tasks were predominantly tackled using symbolic approaches, while neural networks were claimed to lack this representation power [1]. However, to face this critisism, during the last decade a number of architectures and algorithms were designed demonstrating the capability of connectionist approaches to generate structured representations as well. The best known examples include recursive autoassociative memory [2] ....

J.A. Fodor and Z.W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3--71, 1988.

....Symbolically Speaking 2 Abstract The ability to combine words into novel sentences has been used to argue that humans have symbolic language production abilities. Critiques of connectionist models of language often center on the inability of these models to generalize symbolically (Fodor Pylyshyn, 1988; Marcus, 1998) A connectionist model of sentence production is described which has variables that are inspired by distinctions in the visual system. For several tests of symbolic generalization, the model with variables is better able to generalize to novel sentences than a model without ....

.... blicket used in this manner. This ability to combine words and sentence frames in the absence of previous experience has led some researchers to argue that language requires symbolic capabilities, where knowledge about language is phrased in terms of variables and operations on those variables (Fodor Pylyshyn, 1988; Marcus, 1998; Pinker Prince, 1988) In addition to evidence that supports symbolic processing, there is also research that shows that people are recording the detailed statistical properties of the sentences that they are hearing and producing. One source of evidence for this is the role of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.

....firmly and technically based on connectionist primitives in a learning environment. The perspective is motivated by the fundamental differences between the connectionist and classical architectures, in terms of prerequisites, lower level functionality and inherent constraints. 2 1 Introduction Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) claimed that connectionist models do not provide sufficient means for the (in their view) necessary ability of cognitive agents to compose mental representations for complex expressions and process these systematically according to the syntactic structure of the representation (which directly ....

....is determined by (a function of) the content of its constituents together with its constituent structure. Thus, there is a distinction between atomic and complex (alternatively molecular) representations. The content of each constituent is maintained through sound truth preserving transformations. Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) opted for context independent combinatorial semantics which naturally allows systematic processing by virtue of the inherent structure, since syntax parallels semantics. For example, if P has property Q and R is a P, P bears the same content in each assertion and, thus, contributes with the same ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, (28):3--71.

No context found.

Fodor, J. and Z. Pylyshyn. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28: 3-71.

No context found.

J. A .Fodor, Z. Pylyshyn, "Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis", Cognition, 28 (1988) 3-71.

No context found.

Fodor, J.A. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28, 3--71

No context found.

Fodor, J.A. & Z.W. Pylyshyn, 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis, Cognition 28, 3--71.

No context found.

J. A. Fodor and Z. Pylyshyn, \Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis," in Connections and Symbols (S. Pinker and J. Mehler, eds.), pp. 3-71, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1988.

No context found.

J. A. Fodor and Z. W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Pinker and Mehler, editors, Connections and Symbols, pages 3--71. MIT Press, 1988.

No context found.

Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitivearchitecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28,3--71.

No context found.

Fodor J. A. & Pylyshyn Z. W., "Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis", Connections and symbols, (Eds) Pinker S. & Mehler J., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Vol. 5, pp 3-71, 1988.

No context found.

Fodor, J.A. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28. 3-71.

No context found.

J.A. Fodor and Z.W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3--71, 1988. 26

No context found.

Jerry A. Fodor and Zenon W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Steven Pinker and Jacques Mehler, editors, Connections and Symbols, pages 3--71. MIT Press, 1988.

No context found.

J. A. Fodor and Z. W. Pylyshyn. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3--71, 1988.

No context found.

Fodor J. A. & Pylyshyn Z. W., "Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis", Connections and symbols, (Eds) Pinker S. & Mehler J., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Vol. 5, pp 3-71, 1988.

No context found.

Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28:3-71.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC