On the subsymbolic nature of a PDP architecture that uses a nonmonotonic activation function

Minds and Machines

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 197-218

  Dawson, Michael R W ^a   Piercey, C Darren ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Connectionism; PDP; Representations; Subsymbols; Symbols

Indexed keywords

CODES (SYMBOLS); COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS;

PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING (PDP); SUBSYMBOLIC PROCESSING; SYMBOLIC PROCESSING;

PARALLEL PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 0035339415     PISSN: 09246495     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011237306312     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A. (1991), Connectionism and the mind. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
2. Berkeley, I.S.N. (2000), What the #$*%! is a subsymbol?. Minds and Machines, 10, pp. 1-14.
3. Berkeley, I.S.N., Dawson, M.R.W., Medler, D.A., Schopflocher, D.P. and Hornsby, L., (1995). Density plots of hidden value unit activations reveal interpretable bands. Connection Science 7 pp. 167-186.
4. Chambers, J.M., Cleveland, W.S., Kleiner, B. and Tukey, P.A. (1983). Graphic methods for data analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group.
5. Churchland, P.S. and Sejnowski, T.J. (1992), The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Clark, A. (1993). Associative engines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Dawson, M.R.W. (1998). Understanding Cognitive Science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8. Dawson, M.R.W., Medler, D.A. and Berkeley, I.S.N. (1997), PDP networks can provide models that are not mere implementations of classical theories. Philosophical Psychology, 10, 25-40.
9. Dawson, M.R.W., Medler, D.A., McCaughan, D.B., Willson, L. and Carbonaro, M. (2000), Using extra output learning to insert a symbolic theory into a connectionist network. Minds And Machines, 10, pp. 171-201.
10. Dawson, M.R.W. and Schopflocher, D.P. (1992), Modifying the generalized delta rule to train networks of nonmonotonic processors for pattern classification. Connection Science 4, pp. 19-31.
11. Greeno, J.G. and Moore, J.L. (1993). Situativity and symbols: Response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 49-59.
12. Hinton, G.E. (1986). Learning distributed representations of concepts. Paper presented at the The 8th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, MI.
13. Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth Of Logical Thinking From Childhood To Adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
14. Leighton, J.P. (1999), An alternate approach to understanding formal reasoning: Thinking according to the inductive-coherence model. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Alberta, Edmonton.
15. McCaughan, D.B. (1997, June 9-12). On the properties of periodic perceptrons. Paper presented at the IEEE/INNS International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'97), Houston, TX.
16. Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4, 135-183.
17. Smolensky, P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 11, pp. 1-74.
18. Touretzky, D.S. and Pomerleau, D.A. (1994), Reconstructing physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science. 18, pp. 345-353.
19. Vera, A.H. and Simon, H.A. (1993), Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science 17, pp. 7-48.
20. Vera, A.H. and Simon, H.A. (1994). Reply to Touretzky and Pomerlau: Reconstructing physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 18, pp. 355-360.
21. Wason, P.C. (1966). Reasoning. New York: Penguin.
22. Zimmerman, C.L. (1999), A network interpretation approach to the balance scale task. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Alberta, Edmonton.