What the #$*%! is a subsymbol?

Minds and Machines

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 1-14

  Berkeley, István S N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Connectionism; Logic; Subsymbols; Symbols; Trained network analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; FORMAL LOGIC; LEARNING SYSTEMS; NEURAL NETWORKS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

CONNECTIONIST PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SUBSYMBOLS; TRAINED NETWORK ANALYSIS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

EID: 0033688012     PISSN: 09246495     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1008329513803     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A. (1991), Connectionism and the Mind, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
2. Berkeley, I., Dawson, M., Medler, D., Schopflocher, D. and Hornsby, L. (1995), Density plots of hidden unit activations reveal interpretable dands, Connection Science 7, pp. 167-186.
3. Clark, A. (1993), Associative Engines: Connectionism. Concepts, and Representational Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Dawson, M. (1998), Understanding Cognitive Science, Oxford: Blackwells.
5. Dawson, M. and Schopflocher, D. (1992), 'Modifying the Generalized Delta Rule to Train Networks of Non-Monotonie Processors for Pattern Classification', Connection Science 4/1, pp. 19-31.
6. Fodor, J. (1991), 'A Reply to Smolensky' in Loewer, B. and Rey, G. (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics, Oxford: Blackwells, p. 310.
7. Fodor, J. (1997), 'Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity (continued): Why Smolensky's Solution Still Doesn't Work', Cognition 62, pp. 109-119.
8. Fodor, J. and McLaughlin (1990), 'Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity: Why Smolensky's Solution Doesn't Work', Cognition 35, pp. 183-204.
9. Fodor, J. and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988), 'Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis', Cognition 28, pp. 3-71.
10. Hanson, S. and Burr, D. (1990), 'What Connectionist Models Learn: Learning and Representation in Connectionist Networks', Behavioral and Brain Science 13, pp. 471-518.
11. McCaughan, D., Medler, D. and Dawson, M. (1999), 'Internal Representation in Networks of Non-Monotonic Processing Units', in The Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Washington, D.C., June 1999.
12. McCloskey, M. (1991), 'Networks and Theories: The Place of Connectionism in Cognitive Science' Psychological Science 2(6), pp. 387-395.
13. Mozer, M. and Smolensky, P. (1989), 'Using Relevance to Reduce Network Size Automatically' Connection Science 1, pp. 3-16.
14. Newell, A. and Simon, H. (1976), 'Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search', Communications of the ACM 19(3), pp. 113-126.
15. Robinson, D. (1992), 'Implications of Neural Networks for How We Think about Brain Function', Behavioral and Brain Science 15, pp. 644-655.
16. Schneider, W. (1987), 'Connectionism: Is it a Paradigm Shift for Psychology?' Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 19(2), pp. 73-83.
17. Smolensky, P. (1988), 'On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism', in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, pp. 1-74.
18. Smolensky, P. (1991), 'Connectionism, Constituency, and the Language of Thought' in Loewer, B. and Rey, G. (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics, Oxford: Blackwells, pp. 201-227.
19. Smolensky, P. (1995), 'Reply: Constituent Structure and Explanation in an Integrated Connectionist/Symbolic Cognitive Architecture', in C. MacDonald and G. MacDonald (eds.), Connectionism: Debates in Psychological Explanation, Oxford: Blackwells, pp. 223-290.
20. Van Gelder, T. (1990), 'Compositionality: A Connectionist Variation on a Classical Theme', Cognitive Science 14, pp. 355-384.